Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while disregarding
the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and
bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who represents a
sovereign state and a people battling for their survival against an
aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while disregarding
the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, Trump’s stance
panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is not available for signing.
Sign the petition >>>https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is >>not
available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not >conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi
Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6
YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful
and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying
politics which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while
disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international
security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6
YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and
it is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with
Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6
YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful
and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying
politics which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while
disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international
security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6
YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and
it is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not
conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with
Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I very nearly gasped when I read that statement.
Perhaps better to recall where attempted appeasement got us in 1938.
I quite like this view:
The Dangers of Appeasement: How Not to Negotiate with Monsters (or
arrogant idiots)
https://www.boblethaby.co.uk/2025/02/the-dangers-of-appeasement-how-not- to-negotiate-with-monsters/
Again, apologies for politics.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:51:27 GMT, "Peter Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6 >>>>> YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state >>>>> visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful
and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying
politics which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while >>>>> disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international
security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6 >>>>> YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and
it is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not
conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with
Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I very nearly gasped when I read that statement.
Perhaps better to recall where attempted appeasement got us in 1938.
I quite like this view:
The Dangers of Appeasement: How Not to Negotiate with Monsters (or
arrogant idiots)
https://www.boblethaby.co.uk/2025/02/the-dangers-of-appeasement-how-not-
to-negotiate-with-monsters/
Again, apologies for politics.
Apologies for sarcasm! Appeasing Idi Amin didn't go well, did it?
On 01/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is >>> not
available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not
conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi
Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
We need to spending twice as much on defence. And switching to French (or joint projects) armaments or even Chinese ones. This is an existential problem
for Europe. I wonder if their is a European alliance we could join, the US one
seems hazardous?
On 01/03/2025 11:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
We need to spending twice as much on defence. And switching to French (or >>joint projects) armaments or even Chinese ones. This is an existential >>problem
for Europe. I wonder if their is a European alliance we could join, the US >>one
seems hazardous?
The Norse Atlantic Treaty Organisation has worked very well indeed. The
Danes haven't attacked us once during its existence.
On 01/03/2025 in message <vpv01v$7ofo$[email protected]> GB wrote:
On 01/03/2025 11:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
We need to spending twice as much on defence. And switching to French (or >>> joint projects) armaments or even Chinese ones. This is an existential
problem
for Europe. I wonder if their is a European alliance we could join, the US >>> one
seems hazardous?
The Norse Atlantic Treaty Organisation has worked very well indeed. The
Danes haven't attacked us once during its existence.
I think you are mistaken. They employed a young child to scream "How dare you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood" then burst into tears!
The Norse Atlantic Treaty Organisation has worked very well indeed. The >>>Danes haven't attacked us once during its existence.
I think you are mistaken. They employed a young child to scream "How dare >>you? You have stolen my dreams and my childhood" then burst into tears!
I hate to quibble but wasn't that Sweden?
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are all
supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that targetting was entirely under American control.
We need to spending twice as much on defence.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 11:27:22 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:51:27 GMT, "Peter Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go >>>>>> unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6 >>>>>> YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state >>>>>> visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful >>>>>> and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying
politics which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while >>>>>> disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, >>>>>> Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international
security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6 >>>>>> YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and
it is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not >>>> conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with
Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I very nearly gasped when I read that statement.
Perhaps better to recall where attempted appeasement got us in 1938.
I quite like this view:
The Dangers of Appeasement: How Not to Negotiate with Monsters (or
arrogant idiots)
https://www.boblethaby.co.uk/2025/02/the-dangers-of-appeasement-how-not- >>> to-negotiate-with-monsters/
Again, apologies for politics.
Apologies for sarcasm! Appeasing Idi Amin didn't go well, did it?
We need to spending twice as much on defence. And switching to French (or joint projects) armaments or even Chinese ones. This is an existential problem
for Europe. I wonder if their is a European alliance we could join, the US one
seems hazardous?
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go unremarked. Please
forward far and wide.
Sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state visit to President
Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and bullying nature of the treatment
of President Zelensky who represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the invitation represents
the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics which favours the aggressive tactics of
the oppressor while disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trump's stance panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is not >available for signing.
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are all >>> supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is >>>> not
available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not
conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi
Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are all
supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that targetting was entirely under American control.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke >> Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t say
where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of
the EEC.
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke >>> Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t say >>> where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of
the EEC.
"No mail" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please
forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state visit to
President
Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and bullying nature of the >> treatment
of President Zelensky who represents a sovereign state and a people battling >> for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the invitation
represents
the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics which favours the aggressive >> tactics of
the oppressor while disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. >> Furthermore,
Trump's stance panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake >>
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Zelensky wasn't bullied.
It appeared to be his decision. and his decision al;one to go into a meeting with Trump and Vance accompanied only by the Ukranian Ambassador to the US.
And not a Ukranian Minister of equivalent rank.
It was disrespectful.
Despite Trump's pointed remarks about his casual style of dress Zelensky still
thought it appropriate, as another matter of principle no doubt, to turn up to
a
meeting with the President of the US the most powerful country in the World and
along the SoS dressed in his customary polo shirt. A country which had lent/given
him billions.
It was disrespectful.
Judging by remarks he made in the past week, its quite possible Zelensky realised
he was about to be raped over any possible minerals deal. Which would then destroy
any further political ambitions he may have had back home. So he was happy to scupper the meeting.
Along with the fact that the Mother Theresa/Nelson Mandela Status he enjoys with
European politicians eager for photo opportunities has possibly gone to his head,
As to quite why the Donald would gift Ukraine's minerals to Putin, as he appears to
have done is maybe another matter. Maybe just so long as Walmart stores aren't
groaning with Russian made goods that won't be a problem.
Just so long as nobody mentions the big elephant stood quietly watching in the
corner.
bb
An alternative European strategy, that would take courage and imagination, would be to offer Putin the dissolution of NATO and expulsion of all American bases in Europe in return for a mutual (Russian and European) defence pact and
withdrawal to post-USSR borders.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and
bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who represents a
sovereign state and a people battling for their survival against an
aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while disregarding >>> the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, Trump’s stance
panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is not
available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are all >>>> supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke >> Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn�t say
where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of �North of Watford�
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of >the EEC.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and
bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who represents a
sovereign state and a people battling for their survival against an
aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while disregarding >>> the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, Trump�s stance
panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is not
available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not >conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
On 01/03/2025 19:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
Even if you could trust the Russians to keep their side of the deal, you
An alternative European strategy, that would take courage and imagination, >> would be to offer Putin the dissolution of NATO and expulsion of all American
bases in Europe in return for a mutual (Russian and European) defence pact and
withdrawal to post-USSR borders.
are forgetting that there are quite a few other b'stards around which
NATO protects against.
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
On 1 Mar 2025 10:10:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new? token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful
and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their survival
against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while
disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trumps stance panders to Putin and puts the international security
at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new? token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it
is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not >>conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi >>Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
There's a lot of criticism of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 but there's a school of thought that suggests he bought a UK
hopelessly unprepared for war a valuable extra year in which to build up
the war effort - even though he knew it would cost him his reputation.
On 01/03/2025 11:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 11:27:22 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:51:27 GMT, "Peter Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go >>>>>>> unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6 >>>>>>> YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state >>>>>>> visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful >>>>>>> and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their
survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying
politics which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while >>>>>>> disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, >>>>>>> Trump�s stance panders to Putin and puts the international
security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6 >>>>>>> YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and >>>>>> it is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not >>>>> conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with
Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British >>>>> subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I very nearly gasped when I read that statement.
Perhaps better to recall where attempted appeasement got us in 1938.
I quite like this view:
The Dangers of Appeasement: How Not to Negotiate with Monsters (or
arrogant idiots)
https://www.boblethaby.co.uk/2025/02/the-dangers-of-appeasement-how-not- >>>> to-negotiate-with-monsters/
Again, apologies for politics.
Apologies for sarcasm! Appeasing Idi Amin didn't go well, did it?
We need to spending twice as much on defence. And switching to French (or
joint projects) armaments or even Chinese ones. This is an existential problem
for Europe. I wonder if their is a European alliance we could join, the US one
seems hazardous?
I did wonder if Zelensky might start talking to the Chinese. I'm sure
they would be open to a rare earths mineral deal. They also have some
pretty impressive weaponry, and probably a fraction of the price of the
same from the West.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 20:39:19 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 10:10:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?
token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state >>>>> visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful
and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their survival >>>>> against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics >>>>> which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while
disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trumps stance panders to Putin and puts the international security >>>>> at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it >>>> is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not
conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi
Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
There's a lot of criticism of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 but there's a school of thought that suggests he bought a UK
hopelessly unprepared for war a valuable extra year in which to build up
the war effort - even though he knew it would cost him his reputation.
I subscribe to that theory. It's impossible at that point to have avoided
war and the government would have known that. He knew it was just
theatre, but it did allow us to get to the interval.
There's a lot of criticism of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 but there's a school of thought that suggests he bought a UK
hopelessly unprepared for war a valuable extra year in which to build
up the war effort - even though he knew it would cost him his
reputation.
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and it is not
available for signing.
And I thought we lived in a democracy. Free speech and all that.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:(If that blank post got through moderation - sorry everybody. If it
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are all >>>> supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke >> Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn�t say
where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of �North of Watford�
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of >the EEC.
On 1 Mar 2025 at 19:32:46 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that >>>>> targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke
Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t say >>>> where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’ >>
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of
the EEC.
Quite. But your original post was not clear.
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 19:32:46 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that >>>>>> targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke
Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t say >>>>> where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of
the EEC.
Quite. But your original post was not clear.
You seem to be talking to yourself, perhaps due to mis-snipping. It was you that posted the sentence you’re replying to…
"Nick Odell" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]...
There's a lot of criticism of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 but there's a school of thought that suggests he bought a UK
hopelessly unprepared for war a valuable extra year in which to build
up the war effort - even though he knew it would cost him his
reputation.
The overt support of "Britain's Greatest Ally" might have, at that
stage, made all the difference of course.
Instead by hanging back, seeing how things worked out, and waiting
for Hitler to declare war on them, the USA were eventually able to
assume the economic and moral leadership of the West
Following a victory, based solely on a rate of attrition imposed on
both the Soviet Military and citizenship, which would simply never have
been tolerated in any Western democracy; but which instead would have
had them suing for peace at the earliest possible opportunity.
Pass the sickbag Alice *
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,,-1050,00.html
On 1 Mar 2025 at 22:00:41 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 19:32:46 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 13:19:14 GMT, "Spike" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that >>>>>>> targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to nuke
Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t say >>>>>> where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
I don't think it would have been nice to nuke Cordoba while we were members of
the EEC.
Quite. But your original post was not clear.
You seem to be talking to yourself, perhaps due to mis-snipping. It was you >> that posted the sentence you’re replying to…
True! I was replying to you pointing out there were two Cordobas.
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what
was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart. Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what
was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly
the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking
that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting with Trump all that
well? The only way to handle a person like Trump, it seems to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm, and not losing
your temper.
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of
what was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony
fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is
clearly the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in
thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting with Trump
all that well? The only way to handle a person like Trump, it seems
to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did. Patiently, without losing his temper. I
suppose it is possible that, to some people, speaking rapidly in a
foreign accent sounds like losing your temper especially when it is met
by a pompous JD Vance demanding that you show respect to the boss and
thank him for all that he has done.
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of
what was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony
fell apart. Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to
go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is
clearly the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in
thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting with Trump
all that well? The only way to handle a person like Trump, it seems
to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did. Patiently, without losing his temper. I
suppose it is possible that, to some people, speaking rapidly in a
foreign accent sounds like losing your temper especially when it is
met by a pompous JD Vance demanding that you show respect to the boss
and thank him for all that he has done.
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what was supposed
to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly the victim of
unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually
handle his meeting with Trump all that well? The only way to handle a person like
Trump, it seems to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did.
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what was supposed
to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly the victim of
unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually
handle his meeting with Trump all that well? The only way to handle a person like
Trump, it seems to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did.
Er no. He first interrupted when Vance mentioned "diplomacy".
Had Zelensky done his homework - or maybe he had and the slight was deliberate
he would have known, that as you pointed out, Vance is a pompous blowhard.
However the way to handle blowhards is to let them talk themselves
out - not interrupt them mid stream and ask them to explain themselves
In effect he was questioning Vance's sincerity in his mentioning "diplomacy" at all.
Watch it again.
It was like a Sunday lunchtime in the Saloon Bar down at the local.
All that was missing was half empty pint glasses and a couple of overflowing ashtrays on the table in front of them. Along with the odd packet of
Embassy maybe. And maybe a blonde in a sequinned dress on stage belting
out "Please Release Me" in the background.
Grandpa Trump and his son-in-law Vance were enjoying their customary pre lunch
Sunday pint. It being the Saloon Bar like everyone else they followed the strict
dress code. Smart suit, collar and tie and polished shoes. A usual, Vance is spouting
off when along comes this bloke, a typical "bloke in the pub" straight out
of Primark and challenges something Vance has just said. So the two of them start
going at each other hammer and tongs.
Just watch Grandpa Trump, sitting back between them, and watching as this is going
on.
At which point he has no real choice to intervene and explain the position to this
bloke in the pub.
That basically he's up sh*t creek without a paddle; and so the best thing to do is
probably to stop rowing and just STFU.
As to World War Three. As Grandpa Trump pointed out. if Zelensky doesn't want the US to try diplomacy, then presumably he must be expecting the US to declare War on Russia and start World War Three on his behalf instead.
Which seems a fair enough point, to me.
An alternative European strategy, that would take courage and imagination, would be to offer Putin the dissolution of NATO and expulsion of all American bases in Europe in return for a mutual (Russian and European) defence pact and
withdrawal to post-USSR borders.
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what
was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly
the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking
that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting with Trump all that
well? The only way to handle a person like Trump, it seems to me, is to >constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm, and not losing
your temper.
On 01/03/2025 07:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
An alternative European strategy, that would take courage and imagination, >> would be to offer Putin the dissolution of NATO and expulsion of all American
bases in Europe in return for a mutual (Russian and European) defence pact and
withdrawal to post-USSR borders.
It would CERTAINLY take courage!
It could be called "Peace For Our Time", perhaps?
On 1 Mar 2025 at 20:54:00 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 20:39:19 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 10:10:51 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:05:03 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 23:14:31 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go >>>>>> unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?
token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a
state visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful,
disrespectful and bullying nature of the treatment of President
Zelensky who represents a sovereign state and a people battling for >>>>>> their survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying
politics which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor
while disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist.
Furthermore, Trumps stance panders to Putin and puts the
international security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and
it is not available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does
not conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first
with Idi Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
There's a lot of criticism of Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in
1938 but there's a school of thought that suggests he bought a UK
hopelessly unprepared for war a valuable extra year in which to build
up the war effort - even though he knew it would cost him his
reputation.
I subscribe to that theory. It's impossible at that point to have
avoided war and the government would have known that. He knew it was
just theatre, but it did allow us to get to the interval.
The corollary is that we *did* actually prepare for war!
On 2 Mar 2025 at 14:18:43 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 07:53 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
An alternative European strategy, that would take courage and imagination, >>> would be to offer Putin the dissolution of NATO and expulsion of all American
bases in Europe in return for a mutual (Russian and European) defence pact and
withdrawal to post-USSR borders.
It would CERTAINLY take courage!
It could be called "Peace For Our Time", perhaps?
The very antithesis; it would require Putin to back down and surrender the land he had invaded in return for future security. The whole point of "peace in our time" was that no retreat was required from Hitler.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’ >>
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
On 02/03/2025 13:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what was
supposed
to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly the
victim of
unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking that Zelensky
didn't actually
handle his meeting with Trump all that well? The only way to handle a
person like
Trump, it seems to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly
standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did.
Er no. He first interrupted when Vance mentioned "diplomacy".
Had Zelensky done his homework - or maybe he had and the slight was deliberate
he would have known, that as you pointed out, Vance is a pompous blowhard. >>
However the way to handle blowhards is to let them talk themselves
out - not interrupt them mid stream and ask them to explain themselves
In effect he was questioning Vance's sincerity in his mentioning "diplomacy" >> at all.
Watch it again.
I have already watched it several times. Trump ponderously lectures
Zelensky, clearly intending that his remarks should also be directed at
his audience and his admirers in the USA. Zelensky patiently attempts to explain his point of view an is shouted down.
It was like a Sunday lunchtime in the Saloon Bar down at the local.
All that was missing was half empty pint glasses and a couple of overflowing >> ashtrays on the table in front of them. Along with the odd packet of
Embassy maybe. And maybe a blonde in a sequinned dress on stage belting
out "Please Release Me" in the background.
Grandpa Trump and his son-in-law Vance were enjoying their customary pre lunch
Sunday pint. It being the Saloon Bar like everyone else they followed the
strict
dress code. Smart suit, collar and tie and polished shoes. A usual, Vance is >> spouting
off when along comes this bloke, a typical "bloke in the pub" straight out >> of Primark and challenges something Vance has just said. So the two of them >> start
going at each other hammer and tongs.
Just watch Grandpa Trump, sitting back between them, and watching as this is >> going
on.
At which point he has no real choice to intervene and explain the position to
this
bloke in the pub.
That basically he's up sh*t creek without a paddle; and so the best thing to >> do is
probably to stop rowing and just STFU.
As to World War Three. As Grandpa Trump pointed out. if Zelensky doesn't want
the US to try diplomacy, then presumably he must be expecting the US to
declare War on Russia and start World War Three on his behalf instead.
Which seems a fair enough point, to me.
No, Zelensky is saying that if you want him to surrender tracts of land
and sign over valuable mineral rights to Trump's friends, there would
need to be some sort of guarantee to help Ukraine if Putin decides to
try to grab even more territory.
No need to declare war on Russia. Merely to say clearly and
categorically that further land-grabs will be resisted by US forces in conjunction with European forces.
Instead, Trump's bizarre stance is: Putin was able to defy Obama and
Bush and Biden, because they are stupid and weak. But Putin won't defy
me, Donald Trump, because I am strong and decisive and he is my friend
and besides, Putin was himself subjected to the same biased rumours and conspiracies that have been directed at Donald Trump so we have much in common and our affection for each other will secure world peace. Or
words to that effect. What if Putin does break his word? Don't even
think about it. It's like asking what if a bomb drops on your head right
now. Totally unlikely. Don't be rude. Show me respect. I've done a lot
for you. You have no cards to play, because I've now put all the cards away.
On 02/03/2025 13:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what was supposed
to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly the victim
of
unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't
actually
handle his meeting with Trump all that well? The only way to handle a person like
Trump, it seems to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did.
Er no. He first interrupted when Vance mentioned "diplomacy".
Had Zelensky done his homework - or maybe he had and the slight was deliberate
he would have known, that as you pointed out, Vance is a pompous blowhard. >>
However the way to handle blowhards is to let them talk themselves
out - not interrupt them mid stream and ask them to explain themselves
In effect he was questioning Vance's sincerity in his mentioning "diplomacy" >> at all.
Watch it again.
I have already watched it several times. Trump ponderously lectures Zelensky, clearly
intending that his remarks should also be directed at his audience and his admirers in
the USA. Zelensky patiently attempts to explain his point of view an is shouted down.
It was like a Sunday lunchtime in the Saloon Bar down at the local.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the Vice President of the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the
Vice President of the United States that he didn't really have a
clue what he was talking about - and all on live TV. While at the
same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His
mother? A headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide remark to Corbyn along the lines of "my mother would tell you,
wear a decent suit". Very Etonian.
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has lots
of them or whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's
press? Everything that was said ought to have been said behind closed
doors to avoid any public humiliation of any of the people present. I
assume it was Trump's idea because big silverback gorilla man wanted to
show how he dominates other world leaders. He and Vance are plainly
ignorant about the history of territorial disputes in Ukraine/Russia and
the sole aim of Trump is to be blessed as a peacemaker. And the sole aim
of Vance is to display loyalty and fealty to his boss.
The Todal <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of
what was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony
fell apart. Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to
go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is
clearly the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in
thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting with Trump
all that well? The only way to handle a person like Trump, it seems
to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did. Patiently, without losing his temper. I
suppose it is possible that, to some people, speaking rapidly in a
foreign accent sounds like losing your temper especially when it is
met by a pompous JD Vance demanding that you show respect to the boss
and thank him for all that he has done.
I thought he was remarkably restrained in the face of unbridled
hostility.
You could tell it was going to be an exercise in humiliation and
attempted domination from the get-go when Trump riddiculed his garb (war footing black) when he got out of the limo. I was later reminded that Churchill also chose to dress as a wartime commander in battledress when
he visited the White House during WW2.
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit?
On 02/03/2025 13:22, Peter Walker wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes, agreed.
And now it seems that behind the scenes Trump is angry that people are criticising him for his bad behaviour towards Zelensky.
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the Vice President of
the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His mother? A
headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide remark to Corbyn
along the lines of "my mother would tell you, wear a decent suit". Very Etonian.
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has lots of them or
whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's press?
Everything that was said ought to have been said behind closed doors to avoid any
public humiliation of any of the people present. I assume it was Trump's idea because
big silverback gorilla man wanted to show how he dominates other world leaders. He and
Vance are plainly ignorant about the history of territorial disputes in Ukraine/Russia
and the sole aim of Trump is to be blessed as a peacemaker. And the sole aim of Vance
is to display loyalty and fealty to his boss.
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 13:47, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what >>>>>> was supposed
to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly >>>>> the victim
of
unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't
actually
handle his meeting with Trump all that well? The only way to handle a >>>>> person like
Trump, it seems to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly >>>>> standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did.
Er no. He first interrupted when Vance mentioned "diplomacy".
Had Zelensky done his homework - or maybe he had and the slight was deliberate
he would have known, that as you pointed out, Vance is a pompous blowhard. >>>
However the way to handle blowhards is to let them talk themselves
out - not interrupt them mid stream and ask them to explain themselves
In effect he was questioning Vance's sincerity in his mentioning "diplomacy"
at all.
Watch it again.
I have already watched it several times. Trump ponderously lectures Zelensky,
clearly
intending that his remarks should also be directed at his audience and his >> admirers in
the USA. Zelensky patiently attempts to explain his point of view an is
shouted down.
But It was the opening remarks which set the tone for the entire exchange.
These are selected quotes from a supposedly verbatim report in "The Hindustan Times"
selected quotes
:
Vance: "For four years, in the United States of America, we had a president who
stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then
Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country.
* The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy.*
[...]What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That's what President Trump is doing."
Zelensky: "Yes, but from 2014 until 2022, the situation is the same, that people
have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations...
[ Basically Zelensky rubbished (justifiably it must be agreed) all previous attempts at diplomacy]
What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?"
{Basically here he was challenging the Vice President of the United States on live
TV to justify his and the US position on diplomacy !]
Vance: "I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end the destruction
of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to
come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media.
Zelensky: "Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?" Vance: "I have been to -"
Zelensky: "Come once."
unquote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the Vice President of the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
It was like a Sunday lunchtime in the Saloon Bar down at the local.
I've snipped the rest not because I necessarily disagree with any of your points but I
simply can't do them justice at present
bb
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the Vice
President of the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking about - >> and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His
mother? A headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide remark to Corbyn along the lines of "my mother would tell you,
wear a decent suit". Very Etonian.
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has lots
of them or whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's
press? Everything that was said ought to have been said behind closed
doors to avoid any public humiliation of any of the people present. I
assume it was Trump's idea because big silverback gorilla man wanted to
show how he dominates other world leaders. He and Vance are plainly
ignorant about the history of territorial disputes in Ukraine/Russia and
the sole aim of Trump is to be blessed as a peacemaker. And the sole aim
of Vance is to display loyalty and fealty to his boss.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 15:16:08 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit?
Churchill wore a Home Guard uniform when he visited the White House in
1940.
"The Toddle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the Vice President of
the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His mother? A
headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide remark to Corbyn
along the lines of "my mother would tell you, wear a decent suit". Very Etonian.
Q. What do you call a Scouser in a suit ?
A The defendant.
If Scousers can make the effort, then so can Zelensky.
Other than the opportunity it affords him to wear long ties, doubtless Trump,Vance
and the others would all prefer to be able to go to work in silk pyjamas and dressing gowns; same as Hugh Hefner.
Except they don't. They make the effort.
Rather than just slip into Primark, and grab the first black shirt they see
Serious question. If at any time you needed to approach your Bank Manager
to apply for a loan/overdraft extension or were applying for a prestigious job would you dress like
a) Zelensky b) Vance
An honest answer please
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has lots of them or
whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's press?
Well that would be the best place to hold one, surely ?
Everything that was said ought to have been said behind closed doors to avoid any
public humiliation of any of the people present. I assume it was Trump's idea because
big silverback gorilla man wanted to show how he dominates other world leaders. He and
Vance are plainly ignorant about the history of territorial disputes in Ukraine/Russia
and the sole aim of Trump is to be blessed as a peacemaker. And the sole aim of Vance
is to display loyalty and fealty to his boss.
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts the US actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm having great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
"The Toddle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the Vice President of
the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His mother? A
headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide remark to Corbyn
along the lines of "my mother would tell you, wear a decent suit". Very Etonian.
Q. What do you call a Scouser in a suit ?
A The defendant.
If Scousers can make the effort, then so can Zelensky.
Other than the opportunity it affords him to wear long ties, doubtless Trump,Vance
and the others would all prefer to be able to go to work in silk pyjamas and dressing gowns; same as Hugh Hefner.
Except they don't. They make the effort.
Rather than just slip into Primark, and grab the first black shirt they see
Serious question. If at any time you needed to approach your Bank Manager
to apply for a loan/overdraft extension or were applying for a prestigious job would you dress like
a) Zelensky b) Vance
An honest answer please
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has lots of them or
whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's press?
Well that would be the best place to hold one, surely ?
Everything that was said ought to have been said behind closed doors to avoid any
public humiliation of any of the people present. I assume it was Trump's idea because
big silverback gorilla man wanted to show how he dominates other world leaders. He and
Vance are plainly ignorant about the history of territorial disputes in Ukraine/Russia
and the sole aim of Trump is to be blessed as a peacemaker. And the sole aim of Vance
is to display loyalty and fealty to his boss.
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts the US actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm having great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
You reckon that if you want to be taken seriously in life, if you are up before the
magistrate and want a lenient sentence, you should dress up for the occasion?
I don't think it still works like that, if it ever did. I think it is likely that
Americans do size you up by looking at the cut of your suit. It is the basis of their
class system. If you don't look like a winner, you're assumed to be a loser.
If only Trump realised how ridiculous he looks, with his red tie reaching down to the
level of his cock.
On 02/03/2025 16:07, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Toddle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-
donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-
television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the
Vice President of
the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking
about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His
mother? A
headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide
remark to Corbyn
along the lines of "my mother would tell you, wear a decent suit".
Very Etonian.
Q. What do you call a Scouser in a suit ?
A The defendant.
If Scousers can make the effort, then so can Zelensky.
Other than the opportunity it affords him to wear long ties, doubtless
Trump,Vance
and the others would all prefer to be able to go to work in silk
pyjamas and
dressing gowns; same as Hugh Hefner.
Except they don't. They make the effort.
Rather than just slip into Primark, and grab the first black shirt
they see
Serious question. If at any time you needed to approach your Bank Manager
to apply for a loan/overdraft extension or were applying for a
prestigious
job would you dress like
a) Zelensky b) Vance
An honest answer please
When speaking to the bank's call centre in India I always wear my very
best suit for the occasion.
But seriously?
You reckon that if you want to be taken seriously in life, if you are up before the magistrate and want a lenient sentence, you should dress up
for the occasion?
I don't think it still works like that, if it ever did. I think it is
likely that Americans do size you up by looking at the cut of your suit.
It is the basis of their class system. If you don't look like a winner, you're assumed to be a loser.
If only Trump realised how ridiculous he looks, with his red die
reaching down to the level of his cock.
On 02/03/2025 16:07, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Toddle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 02/03/2025 14:57, billy bookcase wrote:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
So there he was in his Primark polo shirt, effectively telling the
Vice President of
the
United States that he didn't really have a clue what he was talking
about - and all on
live TV. While at the same time pleading for assistance
You really couldn't make this up.
What sort of person complains about Zelensky not wearing a suit? His
mother? A
headmaster? Years ago in the House of Commons, Cameron made a snide
remark to Corbyn
along the lines of "my mother would tell you, wear a decent suit".
Very Etonian.
Q. What do you call a Scouser in a suit ?
A The defendant.
If Scousers can make the effort, then so can Zelensky.
Other than the opportunity it affords him to wear long ties, doubtless
Trump,Vance
and the others would all prefer to be able to go to work in silk
pyjamas and
dressing gowns; same as Hugh Hefner.
Except they don't. They make the effort.
Rather than just slip into Primark, and grab the first black shirt
they see
Serious question. If at any time you needed to approach your Bank Manager
to apply for a loan/overdraft extension or were applying for a
prestigious
job would you dress like
a) Zelensky b) Vance
An honest answer please
When speaking to the bank's call centre in India I always wear my very
best suit for the occasion.
But seriously?
You reckon that if you want to be taken seriously in life, if you are up before the magistrate and want a lenient sentence, you should dress up
for the occasion?
I don't think it still works like that, if it ever did. I think it is
likely that Americans do size you up by looking at the cut of your suit.
It is the basis of their class system. If you don't look like a winner, you're assumed to be a loser.
If only Trump realised how ridiculous he looks, with his red die
reaching down to the level of his cock.
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has
lots of them or whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's
press?
Well that would be the best place to hold one, surely ?
Everything that was said ought to have been said behind closed doors
to avoid any public humiliation of any of the people present. I
assume it was Trump's idea because big silverback gorilla man wanted
to show how he dominates other world leaders. He and Vance are plainly
ignorant about the history of territorial disputes in Ukraine/Russia
and the sole aim of Trump is to be blessed as a peacemaker. And the
sole aim of Vance is to display loyalty and fealty to his boss.
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts the US
actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm having
great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
Afghanistan. Remember?
On 02/03/2025 04:07 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Well that would be the best place to hold one, surely ?
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's press? >>
It wasn't primarily a press conference. At least, Zelensky didn't think so.
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts the US
actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm having
great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
There were, as you correctly guess, none.
But surely everyone in the White House and the Press Corps recognises Zelensky as the President of Ukraine. So they shouldn't be expecting him
to wear the trappings of success whether it be a Jermyn Street suit or a military uniform festooned with medals.
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn�t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of �North of Watford�
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
You reckon that if you want to be taken seriously in life, if you are up
before the
magistrate and want a lenient sentence, you should dress up for the occasion?
I don't think it still works like that, if it ever did. I think it is likely >> that
Americans do size you up by looking at the cut of your suit. It is the basis >> of their
class system. If you don't look like a winner, you're assumed to be a loser.
It's basic good manners. Pure and simple. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
Otherwise you simply give the impression that you consider yourself to be more
important than your hosts.
If only Trump realised how ridiculous he looks, with his red tie reaching
down to the
level of his cock.
I have read all three previous three Michael Woolf books on Trump, other
than the latest. And was in broad agreement with the general consensus
that Trump was basically a joke ; and latterly that Vance was an ignorant blowhard.
Howver I'm forced to admit that having watched this latest confrontation - I'd
have
shown Zelkensky the door a lot earlier myself - I'm being forced to re-appraise
my position. I'm still firm on Brexit however.
The point about Americans which is stressed by many people is how polite
they are, with strangers. White strangers at least. And so it was here iniitially.
Howver as I said before Zelensky seems to have totally misread the situation and thought he was there to argue rather than to simply listen to a load of soothing platitudes prior to the signing of the minerals agreement.
Trump and Vance were acting out of stunned embarrassment as much as
anything else, IMO.
bb .
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of what
was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony fell apart.
Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is clearly
the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia
On 02/03/2025 13:22, Peter Walker wrote:
The Todal <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
On 02/03/2025 11:33, Clive Page wrote:
On 01/03/2025 20:17, Martin Brown wrote:
The press corp couldn't believe their eyes as the choreography of
what was supposed to be a fairly straightforward signing ceremony
fell apart. Attack dog J D Vance had been primed and was ready to
go.
While I strongly sympathise with the plight of Ukraine which is
clearly the victim of unprovoked aggression by Russia, am I alone in
thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting with Trump
all that well? The only way to handle a person like Trump, it seems
to me, is to constantly flatter his ego while quietly standing firm,
and not losing your temper.
And that's what Zelensky did. Patiently, without losing his temper. I
suppose it is possible that, to some people, speaking rapidly in a
foreign accent sounds like losing your temper especially when it is
met by a pompous JD Vance demanding that you show respect to the boss
and thank him for all that he has done.
I thought he was remarkably restrained in the face of unbridled
hostility.
You could tell it was going to be an exercise in humiliation and
attempted domination from the get-go when Trump riddiculed his garb (war
footing black) when he got out of the limo. I was later reminded that
Churchill also chose to dress as a wartime commander in battledress when
he visited the White House during WW2.
Yes, agreed.
And now it seems that behind the scenes Trump is angry that people are criticising him for his bad behaviour towards Zelensky. Trump craves admiration. His staff and his anonymous "aides" are busy devising a
narrative that blames Zelensky for what happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/01/trump-officials-zelenskyy
Trump officials fume at Zelenskyy for disregarding advice before meeting
Inside the Trump White House, officials blamed the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, for the meltdown in the Oval Office on Friday, and expressed frustration that he pushed for security guarantees even though
the US had made clear they wanted to negotiate that later, according to people familiar with the matter.
The officials believed that had all been communicated to Ukraine, as was
the advice that senators gave Zelenskyy on Friday morning to praise
Trump and not litigate the issue of wanting stronger security guarantees
to his face.
To Trump’s aides, Zelenskyy did not heed that advice when he expressed skepticism at JD Vance’s view of making peace with Russia and, in their view, lectured the US vice-president on the history of Russia’s
aggression towards Ukraine that started in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea.
Appearing on Fox News that evening, Zelenskyy referred to Ronald
Reagan’s dictum that “peace is more than just an absence of war” and suggested that because Putin had broken dozens of ceasefire agreements already, more work was needed to reach “a just and lasting peace”. Trump appeared unimpressed when he boarded Marine One en route to Palm Beach, telling reporters that Zelenskyy needed to say publicly that he wanted
to make peace and stop saying “negative things” about Putin.
am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his meeting
with Trump all that well?
The point about Americans which is stressed by many people is how polite
they are, with strangers. White strangers at least. And so it was here >iniitially.
Howver as I said before Zelensky seems to have totally misread the
situation
and thought he was there to argue rather than to simply listen to a load of >soothing platitudes prior to the signing of the minerals agreement.
Q. What do you call a Scouser in a suit ?
A The defendant.
If Scousers can make the effort, then so can Zelensky.
Serious question. If at any time you needed to approach your Bank Manager
to apply for a loan/overdraft extension or were applying for a prestigious >job would you dress like
a) Zelensky b) Vance
An honest answer please
Trump wore his over-long tie, as usual, and I wonder whether he has lots of them or
whether it's his favourite lucky red tie.
Whose idea was this bizarre press conference in front of the world's press?
Well that would be the best place to hold one, surely ?
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_ukWatford
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours
are all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans
wouldnt say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of North of
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that the
UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
However, it's quite an inconvenient history for the patriots in Reform
whose current solution to the Ukraine crisis is to allow the aggressor to >keep their gains "for peace". Which is exactly what Britain did not do
over the Falklands. Interestingly in that case the US (again) was
suggesting just let the invader win.
On 2 Mar 2025 at 22:43:09 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <[email protected]> wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
You reckon that if you want to be taken seriously in life, if you are up >>> before the
magistrate and want a lenient sentence, you should dress up for the occasion?
I don't think it still works like that, if it ever did. I think it is likely
that
Americans do size you up by looking at the cut of your suit. It is the basis
of their
class system. If you don't look like a winner, you're assumed to be a loser.
It's basic good manners. Pure and simple. When in Rome do as the Romans do.
Does that apply to Saudi princes and Elon Musk? If not, why not?
Otherwise you simply give the impression that you consider yourself to be more
important than your hosts.
If only Trump realised how ridiculous he looks, with his red tie reaching >>> down to the
level of his cock.
I have read all three previous three Michael Woolf books on Trump, other
than the latest. And was in broad agreement with the general consensus
that Trump was basically a joke ; and latterly that Vance was an ignorant
blowhard.
Howver I'm forced to admit that having watched this latest confrontation - I'd
have
shown Zelkensky the door a lot earlier myself - I'm being forced to re-appraise
my position. I'm still firm on Brexit however.
The point about Americans which is stressed by many people is how polite
they are, with strangers. White strangers at least. And so it was here
iniitially.
Howver as I said before Zelensky seems to have totally misread the situation >> and thought he was there to argue rather than to simply listen to a load of >> soothing platitudes prior to the signing of the minerals agreement.
Was he not entitled, possibly obliged, not to sign without some quid pro quo? It began to look like a scene from the Godfather - a classic offer he could not refuse.*
On 02/03/2025 in message <vq2mu4$vq71$[email protected]> billy bookcase wrote:
The point about Americans which is stressed by many people is how polite >>they are, with strangers. White strangers at least. And so it was here iniitially.
Howver as I said before Zelensky seems to have totally misread the situation >>and thought he was there to argue rather than to simply listen to a load of >>soothing platitudes prior to the signing of the minerals agreement.
He made very clear beforehand that a defence agreement was a pre-condition to signing
the minerals agreement, that was known far and wide.
As to Trump's assertion that he had "no cards" it seem to me Ukraine's minerals are a
rather important card.
On 02/03/2025 10:13 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 16:07, billy bookcase wrote:
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts the US >>> actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm
having
great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
Afghanistan. Remember?
That was a going concern under Obama. He it was who sought kudos for the
on the spot execution of Osama Bin Laden, remember?
Clive Page wrote:
am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his
meeting with Trump all that well?
It seems that many of the leaders he's met since Friday have said the
same to him ...
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 22:45:03 +0000, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_ukWatford
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours
are all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans
wouldnt say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of North of
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing HMS
Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that the
UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
Fair point. However subsequent to the invasion there were repeated offers made to the Argentines suggesting a slow-burn slide towards returning the islands. All of which were rebuffed. If Argentina had accepted them, they would probably have them by now. However they didn't and - as they say -
the rest is history.
However, it's quite an inconvenient history for the patriots in Reform
whose current solution to the Ukraine crisis is to allow the aggressor to keep their gains "for peace". Which is exactly what Britain did not do
over the Falklands. Interestingly in that case the US (again) was
suggesting just let the invader win.
I've never needed to have a face to face meeting with a bank manager over a loan. But if I did, I would be entirely aware that I am the customer and
they are the supplier, and therefore they need to impress me, not the other way around.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are >>>>> all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn�t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of �North of Watford�
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that
the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
On 02/03/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:13 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 16:07, billy bookcase wrote:
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts
the US
actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm
having
great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
Afghanistan. Remember?
That was a going concern under Obama. He it was who sought kudos for
the on the spot execution of Osama Bin Laden, remember?
The Afghanistan special military operation (to use a phrase more often associated with Putin) goes way back to George W Bush, another
Republican, but I think it had cross party support and eventually nobody
knew how to finish an unwinnable war.
Under Trump, steps were taken to negotiate a withdrawal of American
troops without actually getting to the point of withdrawing them - so he effectively continued the warmongering. Then when Biden withdew the
troops, Trump condemned this as one of the worst disgraces to America in modern times. Trump wanted to be seen as the peacemaker and also to find
an excuse to blame Biden for the consequences.
Look at how Trump's plan played out - rapid withdrawal of US troops
thereby undermining the US-backed Afghan government and causing the
Taliban to triumph. He's set to do the same in Ukraine. Trump is the
most incompetent military commander in modern times.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries >>>>>> defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are >>>>>> all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that >>>>> targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to >>>> nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn’t >>>> say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’ >>>>
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that
the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read", the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever to
do with them.
It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked the USA in 2001.
On 03/03/2025 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries >>>>>>> defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours >>>>>>> are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that >>>>>> targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to >>>>> nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans
wouldn’t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that
the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read", the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever
to do with them.
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility of a
long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
We had carelessly given the
impression that they were pushing at an open door.
Once they had invaded they forced us to defend the islands or look as
weak and unprincipled as Trump does now.
On 03/03/2025 07:27, Andy Burns wrote:
Clive Page wrote:
am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his
meeting with Trump all that well?
It seems that many of the leaders he's met since Friday have said the
same to him ...
Of course. When you're dealing with Trump, flattery and fawning is what
gets you the approving pat on the head.
Zelensky was at a disadvantage - his grasp of English is not perfect.
Anyone watching the exchange would get the impression that he was
expected to nod approvingly while his nation was hung out to dry, sold
down the river. Handed over to Putin. He tried to correct the narrative. Trump became furious with him. Trump lacks even the basic diplomatic
skills.
Ideally neither Trump nor Zelensky would have taken part in the
pantomime of a press conference, at least not without a clear plan,
agreed by both sides, to explain what was to be said to the Press about
the current state of negotiations.
Historically, Ukraine was always part of the Russian/Soviet Empire.
I understand that the Russians as a people and a country started in Kiev.
On 03/03/2025 04:03 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries >>>>>>>> defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours >>>>>>>> are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding >>>>>>> that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister
wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans
wouldn’t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of
Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that >>>> the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read", the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever
to do with them.
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility of a
long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
We had carelessly given the
impression that they were pushing at an open door.
"We" had given no such thing, carelessly or otherwise.
Once they had invaded they forced us to defend the islands or look as
weak and unprincipled as Trump does now.
Not something you could ever lay at the door of Mrs Thatcher (as she
then still was).
On 01/03/2025 11:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
Our government claims to have total control over our nuclear weapons, if
you can believe that. I suppose some of them or parts of them are made
in the USA.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence-factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know
Although the UK’s nuclear deterrent is assigned to the defence of NATO,
we retain full operational control over its use. Only the UK Prime
Minister can authorise the use of our nuclear weapons, even if used as
part of a wider NATO response.
On 03/03/2025 16:59, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 04:03 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines""
<[email protected]>
wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries >>>>>>>>> defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours >>>>>>>>> are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding >>>>>>>> that
targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister
wanted to
nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans
wouldn’t
say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of
Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that >>>>> the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read", the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever
to do with them.
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility of a >>> long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Margaret Thatcher's government offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falkland islands at a clandestine meeting with a senior Argentinian
official less than two years before the invasion of the British
territory, it is revealed today.
We had carelessly given the
impression that they were pushing at an open door.
"We" had given no such thing, carelessly or otherwise.
Once they had invaded they forced us to defend the islands or look as
weak and unprincipled as Trump does now.
Not something you could ever lay at the door of Mrs Thatcher (as she
then still was).
Michael Foot, supposedly a pacifist, was one of the loudest supporters
of the decision to send the Task Force to reclaim the islands.
Happy days. The "Invincible Fleet". Exocet missiles. Sir Galahad. Yomping.
Nowadays we'd have some difficulty mustering a decent response to an
invasion of the Falklands.
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]...
I've never needed to have a face to face meeting with a bank manager over a >> loan. But if I did, I would be entirely aware that I am the customer and
they are the supplier, and therefore they need to impress me, not the other >> way around.
Are you absolutely sure about that ?
On 3/3/25 11:37, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 07:27, Andy Burns wrote:
Clive Page wrote:
am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his
meeting with Trump all that well?
It seems that many of the leaders he's met since Friday have said the
same to him ...
Of course. When you're dealing with Trump, flattery and fawning is what
gets you the approving pat on the head.
Zelensky was at a disadvantage - his grasp of English is not perfect.
Anyone watching the exchange would get the impression that he was
expected to nod approvingly while his nation was hung out to dry, sold
down the river. Handed over to Putin. He tried to correct the narrative.
Trump became furious with him. Trump lacks even the basic diplomatic
skills.
The narrative beforehand seemed clear, Zelensky was visiting the
Washington to sign a minerals deal.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Trump's behaviour was entirely consistent with that. Zelensky, on the other-hand, kept pushing for security guarantees, like the meeting was
some kind of negotiation. Like, signing the deal was conditional on
those security guarantees. Trump had been quite clear beforehand that he wasn't offering security guarantees.
For the first thirty or forty minutes, Trump was friendly, tried to
brush off Zelensky's attempts to transform a ceremonial event. In the
end he couldn't ignore it.
So you might think Trump unreasonable for seeking to end the war in the
way he is, but I think his behaviour in the meeting was reasonable. It
was unreasonable to try to manipulate Trump into giving security
guarantees that he had already made clear he didn't want to give. That
is the point Vance made, it was an entirely reasonable point. Trump
didn't wade in until it was clear the meeting had already gone tits up.
I watched it all.
Ideally neither Trump nor Zelensky would have taken part in the
pantomime of a press conference, at least not without a clear plan,
agreed by both sides, to explain what was to be said to the Press about
the current state of negotiations.
The plan was agreed, Zelensky was there to sign the minerals deal.
On 3/3/25 11:37, The Todal wrote:
Zelensky was at a disadvantage - his grasp of English is not perfect.
Anyone watching the exchange would get the impression that he was
expected to nod approvingly while his nation was hung out to dry, sold
down the river. Handed over to Putin. He tried to correct the narrative.
Trump became furious with him. Trump lacks even the basic diplomatic
skills.
The narrative beforehand seemed clear, Zelensky was visiting the
Washington to sign a minerals deal.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Trump's behaviour was entirely consistent with that. Zelensky, on the >other-hand, kept pushing for security guarantees, like the meeting was
some kind of negotiation. Like, signing the deal was conditional on
those security guarantees. Trump had been quite clear beforehand that he >wasn't offering security guarantees.
On 03/03/2025 11:28 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:13 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 16:07, billy bookcase wrote:
I'm more than happy to be corrected as to the number of conflicts
the US
actually engaged in during Trump's last term as President. As I'm
having
great difficulty in thinking of even one, off hand.
Afghanistan. Remember?
That was a going concern under Obama. He it was who sought kudos for
the on the spot execution of Osama Bin Laden, remember?
The Afghanistan special military operation (to use a phrase more often
associated with Putin) goes way back to George W Bush, another
Republican, but I think it had cross party support and eventually nobody
knew how to finish an unwinnable war.
Under Trump, steps were taken to negotiate a withdrawal of American
troops without actually getting to the point of withdrawing them - so he
effectively continued the warmongering. Then when Biden withdew the
troops, Trump condemned this as one of the worst disgraces to America in
modern times. Trump wanted to be seen as the peacemaker and also to find
an excuse to blame Biden for the consequences.
Strange there was press or media commentary to that effect at the time.
Or is it?
Look at how Trump's plan played out - rapid withdrawal of US troops
thereby undermining the US-backed Afghan government and causing the
Taliban to triumph. He's set to do the same in Ukraine. Trump is the
most incompetent military commander in modern times.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/trump-
ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/
What right did the USA - or any country - have to dictate to Afghanistan
what system of government, or which party running it - they should have?
It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked the USA in 2001. It was attacked, eventually, for harbouring the culprits and the attack was aimed at
capturing or eliminating those culprits. The USA had no standing to do
any more than go after the attackers, in a sort of "hot pursuit".
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:15:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I've never needed to have a face to face meeting with a bank manager over a >>> loan. But if I did, I would be entirely aware that I am the customer and >>> they are the supplier, and therefore they need to impress me, not the other >>> way around.
Are you absolutely sure about that ?
Yes.
Mark
On 3/3/25 11:37, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 07:27, Andy Burns wrote:
Clive Page wrote:
am I alone in thinking that Zelensky didn't actually handle his
meeting with Trump all that well?
It seems that many of the leaders he's met since Friday have said the
same to him ...
Of course. When you're dealing with Trump, flattery and fawning is
what gets you the approving pat on the head.
Zelensky was at a disadvantage - his grasp of English is not perfect.
Anyone watching the exchange would get the impression that he was
expected to nod approvingly while his nation was hung out to dry, sold
down the river. Handed over to Putin. He tried to correct the
narrative. Trump became furious with him. Trump lacks even the basic
diplomatic skills.
The narrative beforehand seemed clear, Zelensky was visiting the
Washington to sign a minerals deal.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Trump's behaviour was entirely consistent with that. Zelensky, on the other-hand, kept pushing for security guarantees, like the meeting was
some kind of negotiation. Like, signing the deal was conditional on
those security guarantees. Trump had been quite clear beforehand that he wasn't offering security guarantees.
For the first thirty or forty minutes, Trump was friendly, tried to
brush off Zelensky's attempts to transform a ceremonial event. In the
end he couldn't ignore it.
So you might think Trump unreasonable for seeking to end the war in the
way he is, but I think his behaviour in the meeting was reasonable. It
was unreasonable to try to manipulate Trump into giving security
guarantees that he had already made clear he didn't want to give. That
is the point Vance made, it was an entirely reasonable point. Trump
didn't wade in until it was clear the meeting had already gone tits up.
I watched it all.
Ideally neither Trump nor Zelensky would have taken part in the
pantomime of a press conference, at least not without a clear plan,
agreed by both sides, to explain what was to be said to the Press
about the current state of negotiations.
The plan was agreed, Zelensky was there to sign the minerals deal.
The Todal <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
I wonder how one should dress for parent/teacher meetings. Again, I
think it is the teacher who will be trying to impress.
And that reminds me of the advice given by my son's headmaster years
ago, addressed to the entire class. Look the other person straight in
the eye and give a firm handshake! That's the way to impress!
The headmaster always gave parents a rather painfully strong
handshake.
I could teach you a wrist nerve pinch that would be very effective in discouraging that particular kind of power trippery.
I noticed that the orange man appeared to be playing that game with the Z
man when they first met but Z didn't take the bait.
I wonder how one should dress for parent/teacher meetings. Again, I
think it is the teacher who will be trying to impress.
And that reminds me of the advice given by my son's headmaster years
ago, addressed to the entire class. Look the other person straight in
the eye and give a firm handshake! That's the way to impress!
The headmaster always gave parents a rather painfully strong
handshake.
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 16:03:57 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/3/25 11:37, The Todal wrote:
Zelensky was at a disadvantage - his grasp of English is not perfect.
Anyone watching the exchange would get the impression that he was
expected to nod approvingly while his nation was hung out to dry, sold
down the river. Handed over to Putin. He tried to correct the narrative. >>> Trump became furious with him. Trump lacks even the basic diplomatic
skills.
The narrative beforehand seemed clear, Zelensky was visiting the
Washington to sign a minerals deal.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Trump's behaviour was entirely consistent with that. Zelensky, on the
other-hand, kept pushing for security guarantees, like the meeting was
some kind of negotiation. Like, signing the deal was conditional on
those security guarantees. Trump had been quite clear beforehand that he
wasn't offering security guarantees.
The minerals deal was *always* conditional on security guarantees. That's precisely why Zelensky offered the deal to the US in the first place (which he did while Biden was still in power, it's not something that Trump can claim any credit for).
As for what Trump may have said in the past, everyone knows that Trump routinely contradicts his own previous public statements. Even his
supporters agree he does that - it's just that they try to portray it as deliberate hyperbole aimed at making an initial impression rather than
saying something and then changing his mind. For them, saying something outrageous as an opening position statement and then backtracking on it when it comes down to the nitty gritty is all part of the art of the deal. So Zelensky had every reason to believe that Trump would do the same here, and would agree to the previously discussed terms of the deal rather than continuing to insist on dismissing them.
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are
all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:15:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>news:[email protected]...
I've never needed to have a face to face meeting with a bank manager over a >>> loan. But if I did, I would be entirely aware that I am the customer and >>> they are the supplier, and therefore they need to impress me, not the other >>> way around.
Are you absolutely sure about that ?
Yes.
On 03/03/2025 16:59, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 04:03 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various
countries defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons
ours are all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding >>>>>>>> that targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister
wanted to nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the
Americans wouldn’t say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of ‘North of
Watford’
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that >>>>> the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read", the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever
to do with them.
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility of a >>> long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Margaret Thatcher's government offered to hand over sovereignty of the Falkland islands at a clandestine meeting with a senior Argentinian
official less than two years before the invasion of the British
territory, it is revealed today.
We had carelessly given the
impression that they were pushing at an open door.
"We" had given no such thing, carelessly or otherwise.
Once they had invaded they forced us to defend the islands or look as
weak and unprincipled as Trump does now.
Not something you could ever lay at the door of Mrs Thatcher (as she
then still was).
Michael Foot, supposedly a pacifist, was one of the loudest supporters
of the decision to send the Task Force to reclaim the islands.
Happy days. The "Invincible Fleet". Exocet missiles. Sir Galahad. Yomping. Nowadays we'd have some difficulty mustering a decent response to an
invasion of the Falklands.
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility
of a
long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll
agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales as
long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government -
look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:15:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I've never needed to have a face to face meeting with a bank manager over a
loan. But if I did, I would be entirely aware that I am the customer and >>>> they are the supplier, and therefore they need to impress me, not the other
way around.
Are you absolutely sure about that ?
Yes.
Well you'd be wrong. So, so, wrong.
Because if a potential lender can't even be bothered to go to the
trouble of creating a good impression, then there's even less
likelihood that they'll go to the even bigger trouble of
keeping up with their repayments.
On 03/03/2025 19:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:15:34 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>
"Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I've never needed to have a face to face meeting with a bank manager over a
loan. But if I did, I would be entirely aware that I am the customer and >>>>> they are the supplier, and therefore they need to impress me, not the other
way around.
Are you absolutely sure about that ?
Yes.
Well you'd be wrong. So, so, wrong.
Because if a potential lender can't even be bothered to go to the
trouble of creating a good impression, then there's even less
likelihood that they'll go to the even bigger trouble of
keeping up with their repayments.
You mean potential borrower not lender, don't you?
It has been pointed out that Elon Musk regularly appears next to Trump dressed in some
sort of grown up toddler suit, not the sort of suit that Trump himself wears.
But he's Billy Big-Bollocks so he gets away with it, perhaps.
I did wonder if Zelensky might start talking to the Chinese. I'm sure
they would be open to a rare earths mineral deal
When speaking to the bank's call centre in India I always wear my very
best suit for the occasion.
Everyone is in su8ch a panic when in fact Trup stresed that there would be
no Third World War on his watch.
On 03/03/2025 in message <vq402i$24de6$[email protected]> Jethro_uk wrote:
However, it's quite an inconvenient history for the patriots in Reform
whose current solution to the Ukraine crisis is to allow the aggressor to
keep their gains "for peace". Which is exactly what Britain did not do
over the Falklands. Interestingly in that case the US (again) was
suggesting just let the invader win.
But we don't have Maggie Thatcher now, nor anybody with balls as big as
hers.
On 03/03/2025 15:57, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 11:28 AM, The Todal wrote:
The Afghanistan special military operation (to use a phrase more often
associated with Putin) goes way back to George W Bush, another
Republican, but I think it had cross party support and eventually nobody >>> knew how to finish an unwinnable war.
Under Trump, steps were taken to negotiate a withdrawal of American
troops without actually getting to the point of withdrawing them - so he >>> effectively continued the warmongering. Then when Biden withdew the
troops, Trump condemned this as one of the worst disgraces to America in >>> modern times. Trump wanted to be seen as the peacemaker and also to find >>> an excuse to blame Biden for the consequences.
Strange there was press or media commentary to that effect at the time.
Or is it?
Look at how Trump's plan played out - rapid withdrawal of US troops
thereby undermining the US-backed Afghan government and causing the
Taliban to triumph. He's set to do the same in Ukraine. Trump is the
most incompetent military commander in modern times.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/10/13/
trump- ordered-rapid-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-after-election-loss/
What right did the USA - or any country - have to dictate to
Afghanistan what system of government, or which party running it -
they should have?
It wasn't Afghanistan that attacked the USA in 2001. It was attacked,
eventually, for harbouring the culprits and the attack was aimed at
capturing or eliminating those culprits. The USA had no standing to do
any more than go after the attackers, in a sort of "hot pursuit".
The real irony is that "No 1 Wanted man" wasn't even in Afghanistan.
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:51:56 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 13:19:14 +0000, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries >>>>>> defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are >>>>>> all supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that >>>>> targetting was entirely under American control.
It was said during the Falklands war that the Prime Minister wanted to >>>> nuke Cordoba[1] as a demonstration of power, but the Americans wouldn�t >>>> say where Cordoba was[2]
[1] It was said to be the Argentinian equivalent of �North of Watford� >>>>
[2] In terms of missile target codes, of course.
My impression was she did everything she could to avert a war.
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that
the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read",
the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever to
do with them.
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility
of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll
agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales
as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government
- look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record
to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's
in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of
war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable historian?
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be
an accurate historical record?
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 10:45 PM, Custos Custodum wrote:
There are some who think she started the whole thing by withdrawing
HMS Endurance from service, which the Argentinians read as a sign that
the UK wasn't interested in the islands any more.
If Argentina inferred any such meaning, they misread, not "read",
Semantics. Whether something is read or misread depends entirely on
the perspective of the reader.
the
actions of the UK government, which were, simply, nothing whatsoever to
do with them.
I would have thought that the actions of a foreign power in their back
yard was very much of interest to them.
Aren't we forever intercepting
Russian aircraft even though they haven't violated our airspace? Just
to let them know that we know they're there.
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the
sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll
agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales
as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government
- look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record
to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's
in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of
war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable
historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be
an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims.
Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen. And
if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not least from
other parties to the alleged discussions.
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll
agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales
as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's
in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of >>> war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable
historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be >>> an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims.
Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen. And
if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not least from
other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington
chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely
the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one
from three) anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them
to take over the Falklands.
On 04/03/2025 06:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll >>>>> agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales >>>>> as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's >>>> in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of >>>> war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable
historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be >>>> an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims.
Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen.
And
if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not least
from
other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington
chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
That was in the days when Ministers felt it to be their duty to resign when some
misfortune, related to and affecting their department, occurred.
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely
the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
See above.
Honour.
It's fallen out of fashion since then.
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one from three)
anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them to take over the Falklands.
On 04/03/2025 06:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll >>>>> agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales >>>>> as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's >>>> in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of >>>> war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable
historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be >>>> an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims.
Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen. And
if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not least from
other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington
chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
That was in the days when Ministers felt it to be their duty to resign
when some misfortune, related to and affecting their department, occurred.
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely
the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
See above.
Honour.
It's fallen out of fashion since then.
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one
from three) anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them
to take over the Falklands.
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 22:35:55 +0000, JNugent wrote:
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one
from three) anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them
to take over the Falklands.
They weren't that secret:
From 1966 until 1968, the UK confidentially discussed with Argentina the transfer of the Falklands, assuming its judgement would be accepted bythe islanders
Diplomatic activity
The tempo of operations increased throughout the first half of May as the United Nations' attempts to mediate a peace were rejected by the
Argentines. The final British negotiating position was presented to
Argentina by UN Secretary-General Javier P�rez de Cu�llar on 18 May 1982.
**
In it, the British abandoned their previous "red-line" that British administration of the islands should be restored on the withdrawal of Argentine forces, as supported by United Nations Security Council
Resolution 502.[121]
**
Instead, it proposed a UN administrator should supervise the mutual withdrawal of both Argentine and British forces, then govern the islands
in consultation with the representative institutions of the islands, including Argentines, although no Argentines lived there. Reference to "self-determination" of the islanders was dropped and the British
proposed that future negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands
should be conducted by the UN.[122] However, the proposals were rejected
by the Argentines on the same day.[123]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Diplomatic_activity
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 22:35:55 +0000, JNugent wrote:
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one
from three) anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them
to take over the Falklands.
They weren't that secret:
Diplomatic activity
The tempo of operations increased throughout the first half of May as the United Nations' attempts to mediate a peace were rejected by the
Argentines. The final British negotiating position was presented to
Argentina by UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar on 18 May 1982.
**
In it, the British abandoned their previous "red-line" that British administration of the islands should be restored on the withdrawal of Argentine forces, as supported by United Nations Security Council
Resolution 502.[121]
**
Instead, it proposed a UN administrator should supervise the mutual withdrawal of both Argentine and British forces, then govern the islands
in consultation with the representative institutions of the islands, including Argentines, although no Argentines lived there. Reference to "self-determination" of the islanders was dropped and the British
proposed that future negotiations over the sovereignty of the islands
should be conducted by the UN.[122] However, the proposals were rejected
by the Argentines on the same day.[123]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Diplomatic_activity
On Tue, 04 Mar 2025 22:35:55 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 04/03/2025 06:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll >>>>>> agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales >>>>>> as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's >>>>> in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of >>>>> war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable >>>>> historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be >>>>> an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims.
Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen. And
if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not least from
other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington
chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
That was in the days when Ministers felt it to be their duty to resign
when some misfortune, related to and affecting their department, occurred. >>>
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely
the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
See above.
Honour.
It's fallen out of fashion since then.
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one >>from three) anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them
to take over the Falklands.
As Jethro has already stated: the negotiations were not so secret.
The Argentine narrative about the islands and their negotiations with
the British is here: <https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2023/09/malvinas_negotiations_1966-1982_.pdf>
You might want to skip to around about p60 if you are only interested
in the late 70s/early 80s period.
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/03/2025 06:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll >>>>>> agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales >>>>>> as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's >>>>> in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of >>>>> war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable >>>>> historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be >>>>> an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims.
Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen.
And if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not
least from other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington
chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
That was in the days when Ministers felt it to be their duty to resign when some
misfortune, related to and affecting their department, occurred.
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely
the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
See above.
I have. And it was wrong, wasn't it ? Just so wrong.
Honour.
But what is so "dishonourable" about having one of one's
Dependencies invaded ?
Surely in that case it was Johnny Foreigner, who in invading,
was acting dishonourably ?
It's fallen out of fashion since then.
What has ? Having Dependencies, or having them invaded ?
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one from three)
anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them to take over the
Falklands.
I think you'll find that that's actually covered by the word
"secret", there.
Only don't you go asking that nice Mr Zelensky for any advice on the
subject.
On 05/03/2025 12:02 PM, Nick Odell wrote:
As Jethro has already stated: the negotiations were not so secret.
The Argentine narrative about the islands and their negotiations with
the British is here:
<https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2023/09/
malvinas_negotiations_1966-1982_.pdf>
You might want to skip to around about p60 if you are only interested
in the late 70s/early 80s period.
I am only interested (as you should be) in these "secret" negotiations
which apparently happened just *before* the illegal invasion of the
Falkland Islands (early April 1982, IIRC).
That is what was being discussed.
[I'm sure I don't need to point out that the UK has no standing in
questions of Crimean democracy.]
Whatever that was, it was *not* the fictitious "secret" negotiations
referred to by a previous poster, which were alleged to have happened
some time before the Aril 1982 invasion.
On 5 Mar 2025 at 17:16:03 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
[I'm sure I don't need to point out that the UK has no standing in
questions of Crimean democracy.]
You are mistaken. The UK signed the Budapest memorandum which gave us certain obligations to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The obligation was not enormously onerous, certainly not a duty to go to war, but it did give
us the right and obligation to be involved in negotiation following a breach of the memorandum. Which occurred in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. So we certainly have standing on the question.
On 05/03/2025 15:50, JNugent wrote:
On 05/03/2025 12:02 PM, Nick Odell wrote:
As Jethro has already stated: the negotiations were not so secret.
The Argentine narrative about the islands and their negotiations with
the British is here:
<https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/2023/09/
malvinas_negotiations_1966-1982_.pdf>
You might want to skip to around about p60 if you are only interested
in the late 70s/early 80s period.
I am only interested (as you should be) in these "secret" negotiations
which apparently happened just *before* the illegal invasion of the
Falkland Islands (early April 1982, IIRC).
That is what was being discussed.
I very much doubt whether diplomatic exchanges between the UK and
Argentina will ever be made fully public unless and until Wikileaks
manages to obtain and publish another massive data leak.
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands.
Prior to the invasion
I think our government and our people would have been more than glad to
hand them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback
to enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving
contest. Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating
after the invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant
loss of life not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of the most pointless wars in history.
As always, it redounded to the credit of our political leaders whose
arses were in comfortable armchairs and who relied on courageous
military personnel to do the dirty work.
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather
less sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right,
or more recently, the people of Crimea.
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand >them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest. >Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less >sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >recently, the people of Crimea.
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >>think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand >>them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest. >>Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life >>not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >>Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of >>the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in
respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less >>sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is unbelievable.
On 05/03/2025 10:30 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/03/2025 06:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll >>>>>>> agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales >>>>>>> as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>>>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>>>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's >>>>>> in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of >>>>>> war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable >>>>>> historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be
true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be >>>>>> an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims. >>>>> Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen.
And if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not
least from other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington
chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
That was in the days when Ministers felt it to be their duty to resign when some
misfortune, related to and affecting their department, occurred.
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely >>>> the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
See above.
I have. And it was wrong, wasn't it ? Just so wrong.
What was? The invasion of the Falklands? I agree.
Honour.
But what is so "dishonourable" about having one of one's
Dependencies invaded ?
Believe it or not (you ought to believe it), the system then was that a minister
resigned even for things that were not his or her fault.
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one from three)
anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them to take over the
Falklands.
I think you'll find that that's actually covered by the word
"secret", there.
What reason would they have for not revealing them, since revelation would presumably
strengthen their case, such as it is?
From 1966 until 1968, the UK confidentially discussed with Argentina the transfer of the Falklands, assuming its judgement would be accepted bythe islanders
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in
the UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands.
Prior to the
invasion I think our government and our people would have been more
than glad to hand them back
to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong
style leaseback to enable the few British citizens to consider
emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is
rather less sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland
that right, or more recently, the people of Crimea.
On 01/03/2025 11:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Mar 2025 at 10:45:43 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> Roger
Hayter wrote:
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?
token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Currently the government seem inclined to censor this petition, and
it is
not
available for signing.
In my opinion it may be wise to appease Trump in any way that does not >>>> conflict too much with our principles, just as we did at first with Idi >>>> Amin.
This policy might have to be changed if he starts murdering British
subjects
or fails to go at the end of his term of office.
I saw in a news report a few days ago summarising various countries
defence assets that while France has its own nuclear weapons ours are
all
supplied and maintained by America.
Can we use them without Trump's permission?
I don't know if they have ever admitted it, but my understanding that
targetting was entirely under American control.
Our government claims to have total control over our nuclear weapons, if
you can believe that. I suppose some of them or parts of them are made
in the USA.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-nuclear-deterrence- factsheet/uk-nuclear-deterrence-what-you-need-to-know
Although the UK’s nuclear deterrent is assigned to the defence of NATO,
we retain full operational control over its use. Only the UK Prime
Minister can authorise the use of our nuclear weapons, even if used as
part of a wider NATO response.
- but -
https://cnduk.org/resources/trident-us-connection/
The British government likes to tell us that Trident is an independent nuclear weapons system. The reality is, however, that it is entirely dependent on the United States – both technically and politically.
The Trident missiles give their name to the system as a whole. These
missiles are leased from the US, and the submarines have to return
regularly to the US base in King’s Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of the missiles. The UK pays an annual contribution of £12 million towards the cost of this base.
(January 2017)
On Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:42:38 +0000, JNugent wrote:
Whatever that was, it was *not* the fictitious "secret" negotiations
referred to by a previous poster, which were alleged to have happened
some time before the Aril 1982 invasion.
By definition, if something is "secret" then it's not known.
However the fact Mrs. Thatcher was willing to negotiate *after* the
invasion does suggest that negotiations before are well within the realms
of possibility.
Anyway, it's all moot now. Argentina aren't getting them back until we
sell the Falklanders down the Swannee (sp ?). Which also isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
Nicholas Drummond, a defence industry analyst, said he believed it was >“extremely unlikely” Trump would cut off UK access to Trident missiles >because it would be a “strategic betrayal on a grand scale that would >damage him and America”.
However, Drummond warned that Britain needed to plan for a scenario where >Trump refused to give the UK the missiles for its nuclear deterrent.
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 05/03/2025 10:30 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 04/03/2025 06:30 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote
On 04/03/2025 01:23 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 03/03/2025 20:13, JNugent wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:23 PM, The Todal wrote:
There had been intermittent and imprecise negotiations about the >>>>>>>>>>> sovereignty of the Malvinas (Falkland islands) with the possibility >>>>>>>>>>> of a long lease or other Hong Kong type solution.
When?
Who was involved?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/28/falklands.past
Ooh... not the most reliable of factual resources, as I think you'll >>>>>>>> agree. Far too eager, in fact, to "report" the most fanciful of tales >>>>>>>> as long as they make the UK - and especially a Conservative government >>>>>>>> - look bad in the eyes of those who thing it to be an ordgan of record >>>>>>>> to compare with the Times or Telegraph.
Are you really saying that you distrust the report simply because it's >>>>>>> in the Guardian, and that you regard Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of
war studies at King's College, University of London, as an unreliable >>>>>>> historian?
The Guardian has hundreds of miles of form in such things. You know that to be
true.
One man expressing an opinion is not "history".
And is that simply because you prefer alternative facts to what might be
an accurate historical record?
"...might be..."?
Have a think about that.
Particularly about whether there is any verification of those claims. >>>>>> Does/did even the government of Argentina confirm it?
It should never be a matter of "might be". It either happened or it didn't happen.
And if it had happened, there'd be plenty of proper evidence to support it, not
least from other parties to the alleged discussions.
As a matter of interest, why do *you* think the late Lord Carrington >>>>> chose to resign as Foreign Secretary, on the 5th of April, 1982 ?
That was in the days when Ministers felt it to be their duty to resign when some
misfortune, related to and affecting their department, occurred.
Was it perhaps on account of some financial scandal or sexual
indiscretion, which as luck would have it, was discovered at precisely >>>>> the same time as the Argentinians decided to invade the Falkland
Islands ?
Or perhaps you can think of some other reason why a British
Foreign Secretary might choose to resign on that particular day ?
See above.
I have. And it was wrong, wasn't it ? Just so wrong.
What was? The invasion of the Falklands? I agree.
Honour.
But what is so "dishonourable" about having one of one's
Dependencies invaded ?
Believe it or not (you ought to believe it), the system then was that a minister
resigned even for things that were not his or her fault.
One single example is all you need to produce, in order to demonstrate
that such a claim isn't absolute nonsense.
Snippage
And Argentina still hasn't stated, asserted or confirmed (perm any one from three)
anything about the fictitious "secret" negotiations for them to take over the
Falklands.
I think you'll find that that's actually covered by the word
"secret", there.
What reason would they have for not revealing them, since revelation would presumably
strengthen their case, such as it is?
As I've already explained in another post, negotionas took place
between 1966 and 1968. However these were based on the assumption
that a majority of the Islanders would support a transfer of
responsibility. Which soundings presumably revealed, not to be
the case
quote
From 1966 until 1968, the UK confidentially discussed with Argentina thetransfer of the Falklands, assuming its judgement would be accepted by
the islanders
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Source: Thomas, David (1991). "The View from Whitehall". In Wayne Smith (ed.).
Toward Resolution? The Falklands/Malvinas Dispute. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 978-1-55587-265-6.
...
Fairly obviously the negotiations were secret at the time so as
not to unsettle the islanders but present them with a fait
accomplit, on the assumption that there would be overall
approval.
While subsequently, the negotiations were kept secret on the UK's
part, so as not to unsettle the Islanders nor reveal any weakness
in the UK's resolve, to hold on to te Isalands
These "negotiations" were a secret in the UK but common knowledge
elsewhere? Is that it?
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:03:19 +0000, JNugent wrote:
These "negotiations" were a secret in the UK but common knowledge
elsewhere? Is that it?
The Spycatcher saga is an exemplar of the UK being in the dark about
things that are discussed abroad
On 06/03/2025 12:03 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:03:19 +0000, JNugent wrote:
These "negotiations" were a secret in the UK but common knowledge
elsewhere? Is that it?
The Spycatcher saga is an exemplar of the UK being in the dark about
things that are discussed abroad
OK.
Just let's all have a cite of what the New York Times, La Nación, La
Stampa and Pravda had to say - at the time - about the "secret" talks
between the UK and Argentina.
After all, it wasn't a secret - allegedly.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country >>take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>respect of the defence of the Falklands?
There's nobody to have a treaty with. It's our territory.
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather >>>less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>>recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >>out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>unbelievable.
The phrase you want to google is probably "self-determination".
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country >>>take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>respect of the defence of the Falklands?
There's nobody to have a treaty with. It's our territory.
Wikipedia says:
As a British Overseas Territory, the Falklands have internal
self-governance, but the United Kingdom takes responsibility for their defence and foreign affairs.
It seems to me that indicates our government had no choice but to defend
the Falklands.
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather >>>>less sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that
right, or more recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >>>out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>unbelievable.
The phrase you want to google is probably "self-determination".
Thank you, Cornell says:
Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core
principle of international law, arising from customary international law,
but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a
number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of all peoples.
Presumably applies to Ukraine, Gaza and assorted British Overseas
Territories as well as a couple who aren't that overseas :-)
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 12:24:13 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 06/03/2025 12:03 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 00:03:19 +0000, JNugent wrote:
These "negotiations" were a secret in the UK but common knowledge
elsewhere? Is that it?
The Spycatcher saga is an exemplar of the UK being in the dark about
things that are discussed abroad
OK.
Just let's all have a cite of what the New York Times, La Nación, La
Stampa and Pravda had to say - at the time - about the "secret" talks
between the UK and Argentina.
After all, it wasn't a secret - allegedly.
I didn't say that, and you know I didn't
I merely advanced an *example* where people in the UK were generally
unaware of the actions of their own government despite people outside the
UK being aware.
People under 30 simply won't get it.
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their survival against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while disregarding
the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
No mail wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot goResponse to: when will this petition be reviewed?
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful and
bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who represents a
sovereign state and a people battling for their survival against an
aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while disregarding
the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore, Trump’s stance
panders to Putin and puts the international security at stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
"We check each petition in the order we receive them, in order to be
fair to all.
Due to the large volume of petitions that we have received, it is
currently taking around 6 – 8 weeks to reach petitions in the queue.
We are currently looking at petitions that were submitted in the week beginning 13th January."
On 7 Mar 2025 at 15:18:26 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
No mail wrote:
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot goResponse to: when will this petition be reviewed?
unremarked. Please forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new? token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
To discuss with the King the rescinding of the invitation of a state
visit to President Trump in light of the disgraceful, disrespectful
and bullying nature of the treatment of President Zelensky who
represents a sovereign state and a people battling for their survival
against an aggressor.
I want the government to present the case to the King that the
invitation represents the acceptance of aggressive, bullying politics
which favours the aggressive tactics of the oppressor while
disregarding the rights of a sovereign state to exist. Furthermore,
Trump’s stance panders to Putin and puts the international security at >>> stake
Sign the petition
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new? token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
"We check each petition in the order we receive them, in order to be
fair to all.
Due to the large volume of petitions that we have received, it is
currently taking around 6 – 8 weeks to reach petitions in the queue.
We are currently looking at petitions that were submitted in the week
beginning 13th January."
So they've totally abolished topical petitions? Quite clever really.
On 7 Mar 2025 at 15:18:26 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Response to: when will this petition be reviewed?
"We check each petition in the order we receive them, in order to be
fair to all.
Due to the large volume of petitions that we have received, it is
currently taking around 6 � 8 weeks to reach petitions in the queue.
We are currently looking at petitions that were submitted in the week
beginning 13th January."
So they've totally abolished topical petitions? Quite clever really.
On 7 Mar 2025 20:12:36 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 7 Mar 2025 at 15:18:26 GMT, "No mail" <[email protected]> wrote:
Response to: when will this petition be reviewed?
"We check each petition in the order we receive them, in order to be
fair to all.
Due to the large volume of petitions that we have received, it is
currently taking around 6 8 weeks to reach petitions in the queue.
We are currently looking at petitions that were submitted in the week
beginning 13th January."
So they've totally abolished topical petitions? Quite clever really.
The system isn't intended for petitions which are time-critical. Every petition is open for six months, and the government isn't obliged to respond to petitions on any particular timescale.
Mark
On 7 Mar 2025 at 22:22:14 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <[email protected]> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But neither of these last two statements stop a promptly started
petition gaining several hundred signature in two weeks and putting
pressure on the government. I assume that is why they have taken to
delaying the start. I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing,
there have been some rather populist petitions, maybe it is reasonable.
But it rather makes me think they are regretting the whole idea of a government petition website.
On 7 Mar 2025 at 22:22:14 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><[email protected]> wrote:
The system isn't intended for petitions which are time-critical. Every
petition is open for six months, and the government isn't obliged to respond >> to petitions on any particular timescale.
But neither of these last two statements stop a promptly started petition >gaining several hundred signature in two weeks and putting pressure on the >government. I assume that is why they have taken to delaying the start.
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal wrote: >>
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the >>> UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >>> think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand >>> them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest. >>> Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the
invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life >>> not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >>> Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of >>> the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in
respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less >>> sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>> recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >> out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is
unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the >>>>> UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >>>>> think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life >>>>> not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >>>>> Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of >>>>> the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country >>>> take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in
respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>>>> recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>> to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>> but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >>>> out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is
unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >> ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>> ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran" <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal >>>>wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in >>>>>the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion >>>>>I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to >>>>>hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving >>>>>contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of >>>>>life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, >>>>>HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One >>>>>of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another >>>>country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather >>>>>less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or >>>>>more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>>to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>>but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty >>>>Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
On 08/03/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal >>>>> wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in >>>>>> the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion >>>>>> I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to >>>>>> hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving
contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of >>>>>> life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, >>>>>> HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One >>>>>> of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another
country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather >>>>>> less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or >>>>>> more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>>> to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>>> but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty >>>>> Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>> ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from Eire
to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority in the
NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so within the
next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a United Ireland.
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal >>wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in
the UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the >>>invasion I think our government and our people would have been more
than glad to hand them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong >>>style leaseback to enable the few British citizens to consider
emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving >>>contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of
life not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS >>>Antelope, HMS Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently >>>disabled. One of the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another
country take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty
obligation in respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather >>>less sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right,
or more recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty
Gaza out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty"
is unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the >>> UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >>> think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand >>> them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest. >>> Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the
invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life >>> not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >>> Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of >>> the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in
respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less >>> sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>> recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >> out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is
unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
On 8 Mar 2025 at 19:42:24 GMT, "Martin Harran" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the >>>>>> UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country >>>>> take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>>> to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>>> but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>> ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
But of course reverse self-determination was how they partitioned Ireland in the first place - just found the biggest contiguous chunk of counties with a guaranteed pro-British majority. Or have I misunderstood?
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>> ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
On 2025-03-08, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 22:05:40 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
But then there's the Donetsk/Crimea question; is the "affected area"
the part of Ireland Britain carved out at gunpoint, or is the affected
area the country of Ireland?
That's why I said "primary" group - the people of Northern Ireland are clearly the most directly affected. The people of the rest of the island
of Ireland are also affected, but less directly. That's why the Good FridayFriday Agremeent says that Northern Ireland should only become
part of Ireland if a majority of both groups wish it.
Regarding Donetsk, it seems to be that an area which has been separated
for around a decade and one which has been separated for around a
century are significantly different circumstances.
On 8 Mar 2025 at 22:05:40 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
But then there's the Donetsk/Crimea question; is the "affected area"
the part of Ireland Britain carved out at gunpoint, or is the affected
area the country of Ireland?
On 9 Mar 2025 at 12:17:22 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 22:05:40 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> >>> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the >>>>> country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one >>>>> little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
But then there's the Donetsk/Crimea question; is the "affected area"
the part of Ireland Britain carved out at gunpoint, or is the affected
area the country of Ireland?
That's why I said "primary" group - the people of Northern Ireland are
clearly the most directly affected. The people of the rest of the island
of Ireland are also affected, but less directly. That's why the Good
FridayFriday Agremeent says that Northern Ireland should only become
part of Ireland if a majority of both groups wish it.
Regarding Donetsk, it seems to be that an area which has been separated
for around a decade and one which has been separated for around a
century are significantly different circumstances.
I'm not disagreeing that the Good Friday Agreement is probably the pragmatic way forward! I am not sure that duration of control is conclusive, it would have been a formidable argument against Indian independence, for instance.
Hasn't the Russian SOP so far has been to claim that there are
"Russians" (minorities) in neighbouring countries that "need" protection
from their oppressive overlords. So the tanks roll in?
Presumably the excuse Trump will use to invade Canada.
"Hey, that Canada. Those folk are *American*. They speak *American* they
need the US to protect them"
whilst the world does nothing.
On 08/03/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The
Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any
in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the
invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad >>>>>> to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving
contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss
of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS
Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. >>>>>> One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another
country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is
rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right,
or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a
right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper
wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to
empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely
ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a United Ireland.
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the >>>> UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >>>> think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand >>>> them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest. >>>> Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the
invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life >>>> not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >>>> Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of >>>> the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country >>> take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in
respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less >>>> sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>>> recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>> to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >>> out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is
unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them.
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is
defined) to the Crown.
On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:05:40 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to completely >>>>ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
So what is the difference between the people of Northern Ireland
coosing to be part of the UK and and the people of Dover deciding they
want to be French, should you have a say in that one?
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/03/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The
Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any >>>>>>> in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the
invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad >>>>>>> to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving >>>>>>> contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss >>>>>>> of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS
Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. >>>>>>> One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another
country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is
rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, >>>>>>> or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a >>>>>> right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper
wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to
empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely
ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
On 2025-03-09, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 12:17:22 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 22:05:40 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the >>>>>> country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part >>>>>> (Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one >>>>>> little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
But then there's the Donetsk/Crimea question; is the "affected area"
the part of Ireland Britain carved out at gunpoint, or is the affected >>>> area the country of Ireland?
That's why I said "primary" group - the people of Northern Ireland are
clearly the most directly affected. The people of the rest of the island >>> of Ireland are also affected, but less directly. That's why the Good
FridayFriday Agremeent says that Northern Ireland should only become
part of Ireland if a majority of both groups wish it.
Regarding Donetsk, it seems to be that an area which has been separated
for around a decade and one which has been separated for around a
century are significantly different circumstances.
I'm not disagreeing that the Good Friday Agreement is probably the pragmatic >> way forward! I am not sure that duration of control is conclusive, it would >> have been a formidable argument against Indian independence, for instance.
I didn't say it was conclusive of anything, I said it makes a difference.
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:31:22 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 08/03/2025 in message <[email protected]>
Martin Harran wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 17:11:28 GMT, "Martin Harran"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 5 Mar 2025 17:40:47 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 05/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> The
Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any >>>>>>>> in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the >>>>>>>> invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad >>>>>>>> to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving >>>>>>>> contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss >>>>>>>> of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS
Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. >>>>>>>> One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another >>>>>>> country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is >>>>>>>> rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, >>>>>>>> or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a >>>>>>> right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper
wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to
empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>> allowed to do so?
That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to
completely
ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem.
Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the
country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part
(Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one
little corner of the country.
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Probably a unanimous preference not to have a borderline result. If the Brexit
referendum taught us anything it is that borderline referendum results are a bad thing.
On 9 Mar 2025 at 12:43:03 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-03-09, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 12:17:22 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> >>> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 at 22:05:40 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-03-08, Martin Harran <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2025 18:46:15 GMT, Roger Hayter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> That of course is how countries like the UK and Spain manage to >>>>>>>> completely ignore self-determination.
They can also use it in reverse to get around an awkward problem. >>>>>>> Northern Ireland is a prime example; if a vote was put to either the >>>>>>> country to which it belongs (UK) or the island of which it is part >>>>>>> (Ireland) then the result in both would undoubtedly be a United
Ireland. Whilst getting shot of it would delight the British
government, they worry about the effect of a unionist/loyalist
backlash so get around it by applying self-determination to that one >>>>>>> little corner of the country.
I don't have a strong opinion about Northern Ireland either way,
except that the Good Friday Agreement seems a great improvement
on the previous state of affairs, but surely "the people who
live in the affected area" are the only possible logical primary
polling group for such a change? I live in London and I would
regard it as bizarre and outrageous if I were given a say in any
Irish unification referendum.
But then there's the Donetsk/Crimea question; is the "affected area" >>>>> the part of Ireland Britain carved out at gunpoint, or is the affected >>>>> area the country of Ireland?
That's why I said "primary" group - the people of Northern Ireland are >>>> clearly the most directly affected. The people of the rest of the island >>>> of Ireland are also affected, but less directly. That's why the Good
FridayFriday Agremeent says that Northern Ireland should only become
part of Ireland if a majority of both groups wish it.
Regarding Donetsk, it seems to be that an area which has been separated >>>> for around a decade and one which has been separated for around a
century are significantly different circumstances.
I'm not disagreeing that the Good Friday Agreement is probably the
pragmatic way forward! I am not sure that duration of control is
conclusive, it would have been a formidable argument against Indian
independence, for instance.
I didn't say it was conclusive of anything, I said it makes a difference.
It doesn't seem as though we actually disagree on anything, then.
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:31:22 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Probably a unanimous preference not to have a borderline result. If the Brexit
referendum taught us anything it is that borderline referendum results are a bad thing.
On 09/03/2025 02:34 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:31:22 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority >>>> in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a >>>> United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Probably a unanimous preference not to have a borderline result. If the Brexit
referendum taught us anything it is that borderline referendum results are a >> bad thing.
Northern Ireland, a totally spurious polity, being as it is simply the largest collection of counties where a particular result could be
reliably guaranteed and not even taking any notive of the other three counties of Ulster, was defined and specified purely for a certain -
yes, I'm going to say it - *rigged* - majority to prevail.
Against a such a contrived majority, a majority of one for Irish reunification is perfectly acceptable.
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the >>>>> UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I >>>>> think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them.
Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life >>>>> not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS >>>>> Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of >>>>> the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country >>>> take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in
respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more >>>>> recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>> to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>> but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza >>>> out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is
unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them.
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is
defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the
people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
On 9 Mar 2025 at 17:14:12 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 02:34 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2025 at 11:31:22 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
[ ... ]
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>>>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from >>>>> Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority >>>>> in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so >>>>> within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a >>>>> United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Probably a unanimous preference not to have a borderline result. If the Brexit
referendum taught us anything it is that borderline referendum results are a
bad thing.
Northern Ireland, a totally spurious polity, being as it is simply the
largest collection of counties where a particular result could be
reliably guaranteed and not even taking any notive of the other three
counties of Ulster, was defined and specified purely for a certain -
yes, I'm going to say it - *rigged* - majority to prevail.
Against a such a contrived majority, a majority of one for Irish
reunification is perfectly acceptable.
But supposing it was a majority of one against? We'd have all the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork saying it was a once in a lifetime opportunity and couldn't be repeated for a 1000 years. Personally, I'd hold a referendum six monthly until it got the right result.
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Northern Ireland, a totally spurious polity, being as it is simply the >>largest collection of counties where a particular result could be
reliably guaranteed and not even taking any notive of the other three >>counties of Ulster, was defined and specified purely for a certain -
yes, I'm going to say it - rigged - majority to prevail.
Against a such a contrived majority, a majority of one for Irish >>reunification is perfectly acceptable.
But supposing it was a majority of one against? We'd have all the usual >suspects coming out of the woodwork saying it was a once in a lifetime >opportunity and couldn't be repeated for a 1000 years. Personally, I'd
hold a
referendum six monthly until it got the right result.
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:31:22 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if
it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin.
eOn Sun, 09 Mar 2025 21:07:35 +0000, Mark Goodge <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:31:22 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority >>>> in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a >>>> United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if >> it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But >> opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result >> would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others
show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years >> which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin. And >> that poll was taken during the lead up to Brexit, when there was still
concern that a hard Brexit would mean the reintroduction of border checks
between the UK and Ireland. Some repeated polls do show a long term trend
towards a preference for unification, but even those don't indicate that
it's likely to tip the balance particularly soon.
So, at the moment, there's no real point having a referendum, and even the >> nationalist parties in NI generally accept that - they make a point of
calling for one every now and then, but they're well aware that it's just
political theatre and they're not going to get one in the immediate future.
Sinn Fein have been calling consistently since 2016 for one to be held
but it's hard to figure out why they are making such a fuss about it
as they would almost certainly lose one if it were held at this point
in time.
One theory is that they don't really want one just now and it is pure political theatre to satisfy their hardline followers though that runs
the risk of their bluff being called. Another theory is that they
actually wouldn't mind losing one as it would take the issue off the
table for a while and let them get on with other things. Whatever the reasoning, it is a mystery to everyone outside the SF leadership
The thing that puzzles me is why the unionists are so opposed to it; a
poll now would seem their best chance to secure the Union for the
immediate future.
What it would take for that to change is for the opinion polls to
consistently (over at least a couple of years) to show a preference for
unification. That's unlikely to happen within the next decade, unless
something happens which alienates even the unionist community from the UK. >> But beyond that, it becomes increasingly more probable.
Mark
On 10/03/2025 07:49, Martin Harran wrote:
eOn Sun, 09 Mar 2025 21:07:35 +0000, Mark Goodge
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:31:22 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the
government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from >>>>> Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a
majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so >>>>> within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead
to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be
called if
it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united
Ireland. But
opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the
result
would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been
consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin,
others
show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25
years
which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow
margin. And
that poll was taken during the lead up to Brexit, when there was still
concern that a hard Brexit would mean the reintroduction of border
checks
between the UK and Ireland. Some repeated polls do show a long term
trend
towards a preference for unification, but even those don't indicate that >>> it's likely to tip the balance particularly soon.
So, at the moment, there's no real point having a referendum, and
even the
nationalist parties in NI generally accept that - they make a point of
calling for one every now and then, but they're well aware that it's
just
political theatre and they're not going to get one in the immediate
future.
Sinn Fein have been calling consistently since 2016 for one to be held
but it's hard to figure out why they are making such a fuss about it
as they would almost certainly lose one if it were held at this point
in time.
One theory is that they don't really want one just now and it is pure
political theatre to satisfy their hardline followers though that runs
the risk of their bluff being called. Another theory is that they
actually wouldn't mind losing one as it would take the issue off the
table for a while and let them get on with other things. Whatever the
reasoning, it is a mystery to everyone outside the SF leadership
No one has taken into account of the Republic of Ireland's POV. It was
said in the times of the troubles that they didn't want any kind of reunification as the troubles would then enter the ROI.
I suspect the position hasn't changed, and I believe during the troubles
the British army was put into NI to protect the minority republican population.
The ROI might well have to put it's own troops in NI to protect the
minority republican population once more.
The thing that puzzles me is why the unionists are so opposed to it; a
poll now would seem their best chance to secure the Union for the
immediate future.
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron. There is also a risk terrorist action may well take place in
the lead up to a referendum.
What it would take for that to change is for the opinion polls to
consistently (over at least a couple of years) to show a preference for
unification. That's unlikely to happen within the next decade, unless
something happens which alienates even the unionist community from
the UK.
But beyond that, it becomes increasingly more probable.
Mark
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:11:09 +0000, Fredxx wrote:
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron.
Which is why it is prudent to (a) ensure it is overseen properly and (b)
any result is subject to the guardrail of a supermajority. Something a
class of 10 year olds would come up with from first principles, but which somehow eluded the cleverest Prime Minster the UK has ever had.
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere.
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right >>>>>> to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>>>> but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of
Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be
allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is
defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the
people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and
different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much
to the discussion.
On 09/03/2025 09:07 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:31:22 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority >>>> in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a >>>> United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if >> it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But >> opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result >> would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others
show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years >> which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin.
So the referendum should have been arranged THEN. That would have been
in accordance with the GFA, based on what you say above.
On 10/03/2025 07:49, Martin Harran wrote:
Sinn Fein have been calling consistently since 2016 for one to be held
but it's hard to figure out why they are making such a fuss about it
as they would almost certainly lose one if it were held at this point
in time.
One theory is that they don't really want one just now and it is pure
political theatre to satisfy their hardline followers though that runs
the risk of their bluff being called. Another theory is that they
actually wouldn't mind losing one as it would take the issue off the
table for a while and let them get on with other things. Whatever the
reasoning, it is a mystery to everyone outside the SF leadership
No one has taken into account of the Republic of Ireland's POV.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:21:18 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:11:09 +0000, Fredxx wrote:
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron.
Which is why it is prudent to (a) ensure it is overseen properly and (b) >>any result is subject to the guardrail of a supermajority. Something a >>class of 10 year olds would come up with from first principles, but which >>somehow eluded the cleverest Prime Minster the UK has ever had.
If by a supermajority you mean that unification would require a
majority of all those eligible to vote, not just a majority of those
voting, then that's undemocratic, for a number of reasons.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:11:09 +0000, Fredxx wrote:
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron.
Which is why it is prudent to (a) ensure it is overseen properly and (b)
any result is subject to the guardrail of a supermajority. Something a
class of 10 year olds would come up with from first principles, but which >somehow eluded the cleverest Prime Minster the UK has ever had.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:11:09 +0000, Fredxx wrote:
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron.
Which is why it is prudent to (a) ensure it is overseen properly and (b)
any result is subject to the guardrail of a supermajority.
Something a
class of 10 year olds would come up with from first principles, but which somehow eluded the cleverest Prime Minster the UK has ever had.
On 10/03/2025 07:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is >>>>>>> but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>> allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is >>>>> defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the
people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and
different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different
characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much
to the discussion.
Nevertheless, they are there to be seen and have to be distinguished.
On 10/03/2025 14:21, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 13:11:09 +0000, Fredxx wrote:
Because you can never truly predict the outcome of a referendum. Ask
Camoron.
Which is why it is prudent to (a) ensure it is overseen properly and (b)
any result is subject to the guardrail of a supermajority. Something a
class of 10 year olds would come up with from first principles, but which
somehow eluded the cleverest Prime Minster the UK has ever had.
In the event of there being a majority but not a supermajority, on what
basis do you say the minority will should prevail?
How is that democratic?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 01:03:33 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:07 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:31:22 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may >>>>> have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from >>>>> Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority >>>>> in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so >>>>> within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a >>>>> United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if >>> it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But
opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result
would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent >>> for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others >>> show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years >>> which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin.
So the referendum should have been arranged THEN. That would have been
in accordance with the GFA, based on what you say above.
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error.
So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said
to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland.
On 10 Mar 2025 at 14:06:50 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 07:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>>> allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is >>>>>> defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the >>>>> people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and
different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different
characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much
to the discussion.
Nevertheless, they are there to be seen and have to be distinguished.
Well if you find it interesting or useful to do so, fair enough. But I feel to
see why you want someone else to do it for you.
On 10 Mar 2025 at 14:06:50 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 07:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to >>>>>>>>> enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the >>>>>>>>> invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>>> allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is >>>>>> defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the >>>>> people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and
different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different
characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much
to the discussion.
Nevertheless, they are there to be seen and have to be distinguished.
Well if you find it interesting or useful to do so, fair enough. But I feel to
see why you want someone else to do it for you.
[In] the 1979 Scottish devolution referendum - the result was a win for
Yes among those who voted, but it failed to reach the supermajority requirement. So it didn't happen. And the subsequent fallout from that contributed directly to the fall of Jim Callaghan's Labour administration
and the subsequent surge in electoral support for the SNP, which helped lock Labour out of power for a generation. No government with any sense will want to risk that again.
On 10 Mar 2025 at 15:05:26 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2025 at 14:06:50 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 07:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the
invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>>>> allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is >>>>>>> defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the >>>>>> people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and >>>>> different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different
characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much
to the discussion.
Nevertheless, they are there to be seen and have to be distinguished.
Well if you find it interesting or useful to do so, fair enough. But I feel to
see why you want someone else to do it for you.
'fail' to see!
On 10/03/2025 03:05 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Mar 2025 at 14:06:50 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 07:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the
invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is >>>>>>>>> unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>>>> allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is >>>>>>> defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the >>>>>> people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and >>>>> different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different
characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much
to the discussion.
Nevertheless, they are there to be seen and have to be distinguished.
Well if you find it interesting or useful to do so, fair enough. But I feel to
see why you want someone else to do it for you.
I am certainly not going to discuss them as though they were all the
same. They aren't.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:54:27 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 10/03/2025 03:06 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 01:03:33 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:07 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:31:22 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:So the referendum should have been arranged THEN. That would have been >>>> in accordance with the GFA, based on what you say above.
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from >>>>>>> Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority >>>>>>> in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so >>>>>>> within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a >>>>>>> United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if
it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But
opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result
would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent >>>>> for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others >>>>> show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years
which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin. >>>>
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll >>> before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error. >>> So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned >>> rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly
no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said >>> to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a >>> united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Well, you might consider commenting on something without bothering to
find out the background as 'reasonable' but others are likely to
disagree.
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be
inserted somewhere there.
This poster claimed no such thing; this poster simply cited the
opinion of the Institute for Government who are rather better informed
than you are.
On 10 Mar 2025 at 16:52:33 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 03:05 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 10 Mar 2025 at 14:06:50 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 07:33 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 17:08:08 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 09/03/2025 11:56 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 09 Mar 2025 11:26:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 05:11 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
"Jeff Gaines" <[email protected]> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
However, when the Falklands were invaded by Argentina, few if any in the
UK would have even heard of the Falkland Islands. Prior to the invasion I
think our government and our people would have been more than glad to hand
them back to Argentina with some sort of Hong Kong style leaseback to
enable the few British citizens to consider emigrating elsewhere. >>>>>>>>>
If Argentina had asked nicely they would probably have got them. >>>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately they turned the dispute into a massive willy-waving contest.
Our government could not afford to lose face by negotiating after the
invasion. So we had a hugely expensive war and a significant loss of life
not least on Sir Galahad and HMS Sheffield, HMS Ardent, HMS Antelope, HMS
Coventry. Good lives lost, service personnel permanently disabled. One of
the most pointless wars in history.
Our government had no choice it couldn't sit back and let another country
take the Falklands. Didn't we have some sort of treaty obligation in >>>>>>>>>> respect of the defence of the Falklands?
Allowing the Falklanders to have a final say in sovereignty is rather less
sensible than allowing the people of Northern Ireland that right, or more
recently, the people of Crimea.
Doesn't international law or the UN charter say that people have a right
to choose their sovereignty? I have no idea what the proper wording is
but I have a feeling it came up when Trump said he was going to empty Gaza
out. The tosh that Google churns out on a search for "sovereignty" is
unbelievable.
Defining 'people' can be problematic. For example, if the people of >>>>>>>>> Dover decided they wanted to become part of France, should they be >>>>>>>>> allowed to do so?
Of course, they should, subject to France being willing to admit them. >>>>>>>>
Those people do not "own" Dover, though. It belongs (however that is >>>>>>>> defined) to the Crown.
So what is the difference in regard to self-determination between the >>>>>>> people of Dover, the people of the Falklands and the people of
Northern Ireland?
They are in three discrete groups with different characteristics and >>>>>> different levels of entitlement to "self determination".
Which bit do you wish to discuss?
The bit where I ask "what is the difference in regard to
self-determination". Simply replacing "difference" with "different
characteristics and different levels of entitlement" doesn't add much >>>>> to the discussion.
Nevertheless, they are there to be seen and have to be distinguished.
Well if you find it interesting or useful to do so, fair enough. But I feel to
see why you want someone else to do it for you.
I am certainly not going to discuss them as though they were all the
same. They aren't.
I think we all know that; what is your point?
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 06:25 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 03:06 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:07 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from >>>>>>>>> Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so >>>>>>>>> within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if
it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But
opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result
would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others
show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years
which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin.
So the referendum should have been arranged THEN. That would have been >>>>>> in accordance with the GFA, based on what you say above.
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll
before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error.
So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned >>>>> rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly
no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said
to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a >>>>> united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Well, you might consider commenting on something without bothering to
find out the background as 'reasonable' but others are likely to
disagree.
OK.
Take note, everybody: I absolutely forbid you to disagree.
I have no issue with people disagreeing with me but it always helps
when I know what the person is disagreeing with.
Apparently, some posters don't like to see disagreement in a discussion
group.
A discussion group without disagreement in it would be a rather
pointless exercise.
FWIW, I have learned far more in life from people who disagree with me
than from those who agree with me. YMMV
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be >>>> inserted somewhere there.
This poster claimed no such thing; this poster simply cited the
opinion of the Institute for Government who are rather better informed
than you are.
You seem to be constantly seeking confrontation in one way or another.
Nope, just setting the record right though I recognise that people who
have created the error in the record ofttimes don't like being so
corrected.
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/03/2025 07:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 06:25 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 03:06 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:07 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if
it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But
opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result
would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others
show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years
which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin.
So the referendum should have been arranged THEN. That would have been >>>>>>>> in accordance with the GFA, based on what you say above.
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll
before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error.
So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned
rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly
no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said
to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a
united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Well, you might consider commenting on something without bothering to >>>>> find out the background as 'reasonable' but others are likely to
disagree.
OK.
Take note, everybody: I absolutely forbid you to disagree.
I have no issue with people disagreeing with me but it always helps
when I know what the person is disagreeing with.
Apparently, some posters don't like to see disagreement in a discussion >>>> group.
A discussion group without disagreement in it would be a rather
pointless exercise.
FWIW, I have learned far more in life from people who disagree with me
than from those who agree with me. YMMV
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be >>>>>> inserted somewhere there.
This poster claimed no such thing; this poster simply cited the
opinion of the Institute for Government who are rather better informed >>>>> than you are.
You seem to be constantly seeking confrontation in one way or another.
Nope, just setting the record right though I recognise that people who
have created the error in the record ofttimes don't like being so
corrected.
There is no error in pointing out that a question posed in fact contains
more than one question.
You said 'Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent"
needs to be inserted somewhere there.' That is what I corrected,
nothing to do with questions within questions.
You responded directly to my correction by accusing me of constantly
seeking confrontation - again, nothing to do with questions within
questions.
On 10/03/2025 03:06 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll >> before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error. >> So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned
rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly >> no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said >> to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a
united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be >inserted somewhere there.
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll >>> before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error. >>> So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned >>> rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly
no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said >>> to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a >>> united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be
inserted somewhere there.
The GFA merely requires a referendum to be called if it seems likely to the Secretary of State that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland.
It doesn't give any definition of "likely", and nor does it give any indication of how the SoS is expected to make that assessment. So any statement as to what the trigger should be is always going to be a matter of opinion, not law.
However, I think it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that the most sensible approach would be to look for a situation where the average of multiple polls, by multiple pollsters, over a period of time rather than a single snapshot, shows a margin in favour of unification by at least the margin of error of the polls.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:54:27 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
[quoted text muted]
The GFA merely requires a referendum to be called if it seems likely to
the Secretary of State that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. It doesn't give any definition of "likely", and nor does it
give any indication of how the SoS is expected to make that assessment.
So any statement as to what the trigger should be is always going to be
a matter of opinion, not law.
On 12/03/2025 12:52 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll
before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error. >>>> So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned >>>> rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly
no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said >>>> to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a >>>> united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be
inserted somewhere there.
The GFA merely requires a referendum to be called if it seems likely to the >> Secretary of State that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland.
Thank you. That is what was originally posted and what gave rise to my question (referred to above).
It doesn't give any definition of "likely", and nor does it give any
indication of how the SoS is expected to make that assessment. So any
statement as to what the trigger should be is always going to be a matter of >> opinion, not law.
However, I think it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that the most
sensible approach would be to look for a situation where the average of
multiple polls, by multiple pollsters, over a period of time rather than a >> single snapshot, shows a margin in favour of unification by at least the
margin of error of the polls.
It is at least possible that opinion polls fail to fully capture the
number of those who potentially vore this way or that.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:46:26 +0000, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 11/03/2025 01:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/03/2025 07:02 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 06:25 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/03/2025 03:06 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/03/2025 09:07 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 08/03/2025 10:06 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
I'm not so sure. When Ireland was partitioned I think the government may
have foreseen this and so made it very easy for people to travel from
Eire to Ulster and to live and vote there. Sinn Fein now has a majority
in the NI parliament, and I suspect the population reflects this, so
within the next 10-20 years any such vote in NI will probably lead to a
United Ireland.
...when and if it is allowed.
What's delaying it?
Part of the Good Friday Agreement is that a referendum should be called if
it seems likely that a majority of voters would choose a united Ireland. But
opinion polling suggests that if a referendum was to be held now, the result
would be No, by a margin of around 54% to 46%. And that's been consistent
for at least the past ten years. Some polls show a tighter margin, others
show a wider margin. But there has been just one poll in the past 25 years
which showed a potential win for Yes, but by an extremely narrow margin.
So the referendum should have been arranged THEN. That would have been
in accordance with the GFA, based on what you say above.
"...*based on what you say above*...".
One opinion poll had a result which disagreed with every other opinion poll
before or since. And the percentages were well within the margin of error.
So it's more likely that it was an outlier as far as polls are concerned
rather than showing a real swing in favour of unification. There's certainly
no way that a single poll which differs from all other polls could be said
to demonstrate that it's likely that a majority of voters would choose a
united Ireland.
Based on what you actually wrote, my question was more than reasonable.
Well, you might consider commenting on something without bothering to >>>>>>> find out the background as 'reasonable' but others are likely to >>>>>>> disagree.
OK.
Take note, everybody: I absolutely forbid you to disagree.
I have no issue with people disagreeing with me but it always helps
when I know what the person is disagreeing with.
Apparently, some posters don't like to see disagreement in a discussion >>>>>> group.
A discussion group without disagreement in it would be a rather
pointless exercise.
Bingo.
FWIW, I have learned far more in life from people who disagree with me >>>>> than from those who agree with me. YMMV
Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent" needs to be
inserted somewhere there.
This poster claimed no such thing; this poster simply cited the
opinion of the Institute for Government who are rather better informed >>>>>>> than you are.
You seem to be constantly seeking confrontation in one way or another. >>>Nope, just setting the record right though I recognise that people who >>>>> have created the error in the record ofttimes don't like being so
corrected.
There is no error in pointing out that a question posed in fact contains >>>> more than one question.
You said 'Another poster has since claimed that the word "consistent"
needs to be inserted somewhere there.' That is what I corrected,
nothing to do with questions within questions.
Did you not see the post? Do you deny that something to that effect was
posted?
I made in clear in my post that I was referring to my previous post
quoting the the Institute for Government. If you meant some other post
then you should have clarified that.
You responded directly to my correction by accusing me of constantly
seeking confrontation - again, nothing to do with questions within
questions.
I am surprised that you cannot see the reason for my observation.
I, on the other hand, am not the least surprised that you contiunue to
duck and weave.
"No mail" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go unremarked. Please
forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
"billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vpv267$86rg$[email protected]...
"No mail" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go unremarked. Please
forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
Yesterday I found myself watching Gogglebox by accident* in an
edition which included the *edited* footage of the Trump
Zelensky encounter. The reactions of those viewing, as with
the general public and the resulting public opinion is "only
what is to be expected given the slanted nature of the
presentation.
Now "The New York Post" can hardly be regarded as the most
trustworthy of sources which is possibly what made it so attractive
to Rupert Murdoch years ago. However the full (13 minish) encounter
was shown live on US TV and there's no reason to belive the following
isn't accurate
quote:
It was 11 minutes in when Zelensky first contradicted Trump [and Vance intervened] with a gratuitous defense of Europe’s financial support for
the war, which Trump repeatedly has said was less than America’s.
[Zelenky]“President Trump said that they made less support but they are our friends and they are our very supportive partners. They really gave
a lot, Mr. President.”
Trump responded: “They gave a lot but they gave much less.”
“No,” said Zelensky.
“Much less,” said Trump.
“No,” repeated Zelensky. “Nooooo, no.”
Trump smiled and flicked him jokingly to make the exchange look like light-hearted
banter.
“OK,” said Trump, ending it.
“OK,” said Zelensky smirking.
:unquote
https://nypost.com/2025/03/02/opinion/zelensky-was-the-true-instigator-of-the-oval-office-fracas-not-an-ambush-from-trump/
So who was right ?
Well according to BBC "Verify", no don't laugh, the blue and red pie
chart shows the US Govt has contributed 42.7% of Government Support to Ukraine as compared with 49.5% contributed by European Governments.
So was Zelensky correct ?
Well no. Because Government support encompasses financial, humanitarian
and military donations.
However on the next chart * down, (the blue and green one) it appears that
as far as financial support is concerned 60% of financial aid by the US is by way of outright *grants* whereas only 8%(approx) of European aid is grants. The rest is "loans".
Lent to a country creaking under the weight of natural resources
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
* Please note how the percentages in this chart are obscured
as they "verify* the inconvenient fact that in this case
Trump was undoubtedly correct. In terms of actual aid rather
than loans, the US had undoubtedly given more.
Although doubtless had Trump taken the trouble to argue the
point he would have been accused of "spoiling* the occasion.
Instead Zelensky was allowed to flat out wrongly contradict the
duly elected President of The United States of America, which like
it or not is the most powerful country in the world.
And its Trump and Vance who are being accused of bad manners !!!
Its almost enough to get out the Hershey Bars !
bb
* Which is why I stopped watching "Gogglebox" years ago. As
entertaining as it undoubtedly is, regular confirmation as
to how easily well meaning people are manipulated by slanted
news coverage simply proved too exasperating in the end.
On 14/03/2025 09:36, billy bookcase wrote:
So was Zelensky correct ?
Why does that matter? It really doesn't matter. This sounds like the
sort of petty argument that Larry David has with his friends in "Curb
Your Enthusiasm".
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its
support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The arguments should have been behind closed doors.
On 14/03/2025 09:36, billy bookcase wrote:
"billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vpv267$86rg$[email protected]...
"No mail" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Apologies for politics, but what happened today in the US cannot go unremarked.
Please
forward far and wide.
Sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/719957/sponsors/new?token=S6YHbutBwy7SoiRvqp7a
Rescind state visit invitation to President trump
Yesterday I found myself watching Gogglebox by accident* in an
edition which included the *edited* footage of the Trump
Zelensky encounter. The reactions of those viewing, as with
the general public and the resulting public opinion is "only
what is to be expected given the slanted nature of the
presentation.
Now "The New York Post" can hardly be regarded as the most
trustworthy of sources which is possibly what made it so attractive
to Rupert Murdoch years ago. However the full (13 minish) encounter
was shown live on US TV and there's no reason to belive the following
isn't accurate
quote:
It was 11 minutes in when Zelensky first contradicted Trump [and Vance
intervened] with a gratuitous defense of Europe's financial support for
the war, which Trump repeatedly has said was less than America's.
[Zelenky]"President Trump said that they made less support but they are our >> friends and they are our very supportive partners. They really gave
a lot, Mr. President."
Trump responded: "They gave a lot but they gave much less."
"No," said Zelensky.
"Much less," said Trump.
"No," repeated Zelensky. "Nooooo, no."
Trump smiled and flicked him jokingly to make the exchange look like light-hearted
banter.
"OK," said Trump, ending it.
"OK," said Zelensky smirking.
:unquote
https://nypost.com/2025/03/02/opinion/zelensky-was-the-true-instigator-of-the-oval-office-fracas-not-an-ambush-from-trump/
So who was right ?
Well according to BBC "Verify", no don't laugh, the blue and red pie
chart shows the US Govt has contributed 42.7% of Government Support to
Ukraine as compared with 49.5% contributed by European Governments.
So was Zelensky correct ?
Why does that matter? It really doesn't matter. This sounds like the sort of petty
argument that Larry David has with his friends in "Curb Your Enthusiasm".
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its support of
Ukraine.
The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and humiliate Zelensky on live TV in
front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The
arguments should have been behind closed doors.
Now, of course, Trump is beginning to realise that his bromance with his good friend
Vladimir Putin ain't worth shit. Putin will applaud Trump's disparaging remarks about
Zelensky but won't give any concessions and if necessary will humiliate Trump.
Well no. Because Government support encompasses financial, humanitarian
and military donations.
However on the next chart * down, (the blue and green one) it appears that >> as far as financial support is concerned 60% of financial aid by the US is by
way of outright *grants* whereas only 8%(approx) of European aid is grants. >> The rest is "loans".
Lent to a country creaking under the weight of natural resources
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
* Please note how the percentages in this chart are obscured
as they "verify* the inconvenient fact that in this case
Trump was undoubtedly correct. In terms of actual aid rather
than loans, the US had undoubtedly given more.
Although doubtless had Trump taken the trouble to argue the
point he would have been accused of "spoiling* the occasion.
Instead Zelensky was allowed to flat out wrongly contradict the
duly elected President of The United States of America, which like
it or not is the most powerful country in the world.
And its Trump and Vance who are being accused of bad manners !!!
Its almost enough to get out the Hershey Bars !
bb
* Which is why I stopped watching "Gogglebox" years ago. As
entertaining as it undoubtedly is, regular confirmation as
to how easily well meaning people are manipulated by slanted
news coverage simply proved too exasperating in the end.
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its >>support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and >>humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists, >>when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The >>arguments should have been behind closed doors.
[ ... ]
My first reaction to that incident was incredulity that it took place on
live television rather than in private.
But later, we learned that is DID take place in private and that
agreements had already been concluded, with the television event a mere >ritual to announce what had been agreed with a public "signing".
On 14/03/2025 09:54 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/03/2025 09:36, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
So was Zelensky correct ?
Why does that matter? It really doesn't matter. This sounds like the
sort of petty argument that Larry David has with his friends in "Curb
Your Enthusiasm".
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its
support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and
humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The
arguments should have been behind closed doors.
[ ... ]
My first reaction to that incident was incredulity that it took place on *live* television rather than in private.
But later, we learned that is DID take place in private and that
agreements had already been concluded, with the television event a mere ritual to announce what had been agreed with a public "signing".
During the live event, the Ukrainian president attempted to press the
USA to agree to, and give, more than it already had in private. This may
well have been at least partly due to his having been lionised by every western government (deservedly or otherwise) and his feeling that the
normal rules of business didn't apply to him and that all he had to do
was ask and that the USA would be embarrassed into doing more than had already been agreed.
Seen in that light, the falling-out that followed is rather more explicable.
JNugent wrote:
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its
support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and
humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The
arguments should have been behind closed doors.
[ ... ]
My first reaction to that incident was incredulity that it took place
on live television rather than in private.
But later, we learned that is DID take place in private and that
agreements had already been concluded, with the television event a
mere ritual to announce what had been agreed with a public "signing".
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another,
of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that >the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on
international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been
arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>>distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another,
of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that >>the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on >>international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me
like Zelenskyy was jumped.
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>>>distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another, >>>of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that >>>the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on >>>international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>>arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me
like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up
as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>>
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>>>>distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another, >>>>of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that >>>>the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on >>>>international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>>>arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me
like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-skinned
imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up
as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
Indeed not.
Only Zelensky appears to be one of the few people around who didn't
already seem to realise that the person who he'd be dealing with was
a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler,
(in addition to being the elected President of the United States).
So what exactly does that say about Zelensky ?
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to
distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or
another, of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely
that the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on
international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been
arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me
like Zelenskyy was jumped.
On 2025-03-14, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>>>
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>>>>>distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another, >>>>>of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that >>>>>the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on >>>>>international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>>>>arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me >>>> like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-skinned >>> imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up
as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
Indeed not.
Only Zelensky appears to be one of the few people around who didn't
already seem to realise that the person who he'd be dealing with was
a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler,
(in addition to being the elected President of the United States).
So what exactly does that say about Zelensky ?
Nothing, since your premise is false? Contradicting Trump on live TV
was obviously not a great move, but the alternative of just agreeing
with whatever bullshit he made up on the spot wasn't necessarily a
good idea either.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:44:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Trump ego doesn;t need any feeding. He and his advisors read the minds of the >>US electorate to a tee or at least better than the commentariat for whom then pennty
only subsequently dropped; and as a result he's the duly elected President of the US.
Not some jumped up TV comic, famous for playing a piano with his privates (look
it up) who was selected as a presidential candidate by the oiwner of the TV >>channel that made his famous, and founded his party
So you don't think that Trump already knew this ? (The clip is in Youtube so I believe)
You disparage others for believing what they see on videos yet you
believe that Zelensky really was playing the piano with his genitalia.
Apparently whilst you do not like jumped up TV comics becoming
president of their country, you have no problem with a jumped up
reality star with a terrible business record, a convicted felon with a penchant for having sex with porn stars and sexually assaulting any
other woman who takes his fancy.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:44:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Trump ego doesn;t need any feeding. He and his advisors read the minds of the
US electorate to a tee or at least better than the commentariat for whom then pennty
only subsequently dropped; and as a result he's the duly elected President of the US.
Not some jumped up TV comic, famous for playing a piano with his privates (look
it up) who was selected as a presidential candidate by the oiwner of the TV >> channel that made his famous, and founded his party
So you don't think that Trump already knew this ? (The clip is in Youtube so I believe)
You disparage others for believing what they see on videos yet you
believe that Zelensky really was playing the piano with his genitalia.
Apparently whilst you do not like jumped up TV comics becoming
president of their country, you have no problem with a jumped up
reality star with a terrible business record, a convicted felon with a penchant for having sex with porn stars and sexually assaulting any
other woman who takes his fancy.
[…]
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:44:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Trump ego doesn;t need any feeding. He and his advisors read the minds of the >>US electorate to a tee or at least better than the commentariat for whom then pennty
only subsequently dropped; and as a result he's the duly elected President of the US.
Not some jumped up TV comic, famous for playing a piano with his privates (look
it up) who was selected as a presidential candidate by the oiwner of the TV >>channel that made his famous, and founded his party
So you don't think that Trump already knew this ? (The clip is in Youtube so I believe)
You disparage others for believing what they see on videos yet you
believe that Zelensky really was playing the piano with his genitalia.
Apparently whilst you do not like jumped up TV comics becoming
president of their country, you have no problem with a jumped up
reality star with a terrible business record, a convicted felon with a >penchant for having sex with porn stars and sexually assaulting any
other woman who takes his fancy.
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>>>>>> distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another, >>>>>> of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that
the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on
international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>>>>> arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me >>>>> like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-skinned >>>> imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up >>>> as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
Indeed not.
Only Zelensky appears to be one of the few people around who didn't
already seem to realise that the person who he'd be dealing with was
a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler,
(in addition to being the elected President of the United States).
So what exactly does that say about Zelensky ?
Nothing, since your premise is false? Contradicting Trump on live TV
was obviously not a great move, but the alternative of just agreeing
with whatever bullshit he made up on the spot wasn't necessarily a
good idea either.
Except Trump didn't make up any bullshit on the spot did he ?
In terms of actual *aid* rather than *loans*, the US has been by far
the biggest supporter if Ukraine, even as compared with Europe as a
whole.
Or do you wish to deny that ?
While if you really want to know what the UK's latest *support* for
Ukraine actually consists of, I suggest you read the current "Private Eye". Top story "Spoils of War"
As to your claim that Trump is "thin skinned". That will come as
something of a surprise to the more sophisticated among New Yorkers
who have been ridiculing Trump's conspicuous lack of taste for
going in four decades now. Who names a whole tower after
themselves for heavens sake ? Never mind casinos. And as to
those hair styles.
All water off a duck's back.
Trump is so vain and rich (even if borrowed) that he's never given
a toss for anyone else's opinion of him.
However the Dignity of The Office of The President of the United States
is an entirely different matter; and needs to be upheld.
As to his having "the mind of a toddler"
Now quite possibly as you personally don't have a 663ft skyscraper
on Fifth Avenue, New York with your name on it, you might not be
expected to have realised this. But most of the people who voted
for Trump have the minds of toddlers, too. So that when Trump
makes mistakes, they don't even notice. Or if they do well
he's just one of them ! So why should he care ?
Quite possibly very early on in his career Trump worked out that
any reasonably intelligent person can be a smart*rse too. Providing
they put in the hours, reading the books, and doing the research.
But why bother if you can pay some other dummies to do it all for you
while you spend your time on the golf course ?
It's the same with the criticism of Trump, that he gets most of his information by watching Fox News. But then that's what typical Trump
voters watch too !
It's no good him trying to blind them with facts and statistics
from research papers when these will fly straight over their
heads. So why bother ? To keep up with things just follow the
latest hot topics on Fox News.
This has probably always been true of most US voters only Hilary
and Kamala wouldn't want to compromise themselves by admitting
as much.
"Martin Harran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:44:17 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
Trump ego doesn;t need any feeding. He and his advisors read the minds of the
US electorate to a tee or at least better than the commentariat for whom then pennty
only subsequently dropped; and as a result he's the duly elected President of the US.
Not some jumped up TV comic, famous for playing a piano with his privates (look
it up) who was selected as a presidential candidate by the oiwner of the TV
channel that made his famous, and founded his party
So you don't think that Trump already knew this ? (The clip is in Youtube so I believe)
You disparage others for believing what they see on videos yet you
believe that Zelensky really was playing the piano with his genitalia.
Er bad call. Zelkensky has never denied it.
As it happens there *is a lot more* on Zelensky but as the information was obtained by surreptitious means - unlike his public performances - the use
of which I abhor, I will abstain from mentioning any of it. Or his
Wikipedia article which mentions it and the linked Guardian article on
the subject.
Oh all right. if you really insist but I'd really rather not do this,
you know
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy
Oct 2021. Now how long ago was that, again ?
Not that Trump of any of his advisors will have ever heard of Google
or Wikipedia or the Guardian of course.
Apparently whilst you do not like jumped up TV comics becoming
president of their country, you have no problem with a jumped up
reality star with a terrible business record, a convicted felon with a
penchant for having sex with porn stars and sexually assaulting any
other woman who takes his fancy.
While Trump may have used bankruptcy as a technical measure the
fact remains he owns Mar El Largo, at least one golf course in Scotland
and a 600 ft Building on 5th Avenue with his name on it presumably
among other things. Which is a lot more than any of his critics can
boast. Unless there are any "Sour Grapes Towers" knocking around
anywhere.
As to the women and paying off Stormy Daniels (Felony count 1) it wasn't;t Trump who is on record as saying " 'If I don't have sex every day, I get a headache," Try Google,
Basically going by almost "all" published accounts, if JFK had survived and run for re-election and had had to pay off prostitutes in the way Trump did with
Stormy Daniels, then the Kennedys would have been bankrupted before
he was even re-elected.
Its true there were no sex allegations against Joe Biden which is rare for a US president but then he was probably beyond it at that stage as with
most other things.
As to the property valuations (Felony count 2) If you'll pardon the pun
this is clearly a "trumped up charge" brought for purely political
reasons. All property developers are optimists by nature; otherwise
none of their projects would ever get off the ground,
To be honest I'm just loving it, how the commentariat are finally realising what a *total insult* it was to US voters for an enfeebled Joe Biden to reluctantly force Kamala Harris onto them at the very last minute
(capable though she might well be in other circumstances) and expect
them to vote for her, instead
Which when you think about it, was really taking the p*ss, big time.
Was it not ?
Its almost as If the US, the Democrats in particular, secretly want Trump to be President, even though this goes against their better natures
"The exact same as before, and pretend everything's fine".
On 14 Mar 2025 at 12:30:49 GMT, "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 09:54 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/03/2025 09:36, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
So was Zelensky correct ?
Why does that matter? It really doesn't matter. This sounds like the
sort of petty argument that Larry David has with his friends in "Curb
Your Enthusiasm".
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its
support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and
humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The
arguments should have been behind closed doors.
[ ... ]
My first reaction to that incident was incredulity that it took place on
*live* television rather than in private.
But later, we learned that is DID take place in private and that
agreements had already been concluded, with the television event a mere
ritual to announce what had been agreed with a public "signing".
During the live event, the Ukrainian president attempted to press the
USA to agree to, and give, more than it already had in private. This may
well have been at least partly due to his having been lionised by every
western government (deservedly or otherwise) and his feeling that the
normal rules of business didn't apply to him and that all he had to do
was ask and that the USA would be embarrassed into doing more than had
already been agreed.
Seen in that light, the falling-out that followed is rather more explicable.
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be covered by the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be covered >>by
the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which were >being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison more
than had been agreed before the public "communique".
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>>
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is difficult to >>>>> distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or another, >>>> of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all likely that >>>> the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on
international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been
arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me
like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-skinned
imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up
as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
Indeed not.
Only Zelensky appears to be one of the few people around who didn't
already seem to realise that the person who he'd be dealing with was
a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler,
(in addition to being the elected President of the United States).
So what exactly does that say about Zelensky ?
On 14/03/2025 09:54 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/03/2025 09:36, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
So was Zelensky correct ?
Why does that matter? It really doesn't matter. This sounds like the
sort of petty argument that Larry David has with his friends in "Curb
Your Enthusiasm".
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its
support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and
humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The
arguments should have been behind closed doors.
[ ... ]
My first reaction to that incident was incredulity that it took place on *live* television rather than in private.
But later, we learned that is DID take place in private and that
agreements had already been concluded, with the television event a mere ritual to announce what had been agreed with a public "signing".
During the live event, the Ukrainian president attempted to press the
USA to agree to, and give, more than it already had in private. This may
well have been at least partly due to his having been lionised by every western government (deservedly or otherwise) and his feeling that the
normal rules of business didn't apply to him and that all he had to do
was ask and that the USA would be embarrassed into doing more than had already been agreed.
Seen in that light, the falling-out that followed is rather more
explicable.
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by
the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
On 3/15/25 19:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by
the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only
speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
Yes I've already posted a link in this thread.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Quote:
===
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet US President Donald
Trump in Washington on Friday to sign an agreement on sharing his
country's mineral resources, Trump has said.
Zelensky has described the bilateral deal as preliminary, and said he
wants further agreements, which include US security guarantees to deter renewed Russian aggression.
But Trump said the US would not provide guarantees "beyond... very
much", saying the responsibility should instead fall to Europe.
===
This was on the BBC before the meeting, 27th February. Zelensky said he wanted further agreements, not to renegotiate the one he was scheduled
to sign.
The whole meeting is available on YouTube, not just the cheery picked
piece of when Trump and Vance ran out of patience.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajxSWocbye8&ab_channel=TheWhiteHouse>
Our media seems to be dominated by shallow jingoistic propaganda.
Russia's interests seem to have been entirely ignored and
misrepresented. I can't see how the UK's interests have been served by interfering in this dispute.
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
On 15 Mar 2025 at 20:43:36 GMT, "Pancho" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/25 19:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>>
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by
the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>> more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only >>> speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
Yes I've already posted a link in this thread.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Quote:
===
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet US President Donald
Trump in Washington on Friday to sign an agreement on sharing his
country's mineral resources, Trump has said.
Zelensky has described the bilateral deal as preliminary, and said he
wants further agreements, which include US security guarantees to deter
renewed Russian aggression.
But Trump said the US would not provide guarantees "beyond... very
much", saying the responsibility should instead fall to Europe.
===
This was on the BBC before the meeting, 27th February. Zelensky said he
wanted further agreements, not to renegotiate the one he was scheduled
to sign.
The whole meeting is available on YouTube, not just the cheery picked
piece of when Trump and Vance ran out of patience.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajxSWocbye8&ab_channel=TheWhiteHouse>
Our media seems to be dominated by shallow jingoistic propaganda.
Russia's interests seem to have been entirely ignored and
misrepresented. I can't see how the UK's interests have been served by
interfering in this dispute.
So the guarantee we, Russia and the US signed less than 30 years ago guaranteeing Ukraine's border counts for nothing?
If Russia was interested in
peaceful cooperation they would be applying to join NATO, not opposing Ukraine
doing so.
If Putin gives us piece of paper promising to stop this side of Poland and before Germany, at least this week, will that satisfy your interpretation of realpolitik and Russia's "legitimate interests"?
I don't care because I'll be dead before Russia gets to the Channel, but are you seriously saying Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified? Certainly it will give them more money, more strategic commodities and more men.
On 15/03/2025 07:47 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:[in response to something snipped, ie:]
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be >>>>covered by the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or >>>>morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which >>>were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where >negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view of
the cameras?
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only >>speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and ought >not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have had to be >cancelled.
Sheesh...
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
On 15 Mar 2025 at 20:43:36 GMT, "Pancho" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/25 19:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>>
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by
the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>> more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only >>> speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
Yes I've already posted a link in this thread.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Quote:
===
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet US President Donald
Trump in Washington on Friday to sign an agreement on sharing his
country's mineral resources, Trump has said.
Zelensky has described the bilateral deal as preliminary, and said he
wants further agreements, which include US security guarantees to deter
renewed Russian aggression.
But Trump said the US would not provide guarantees "beyond... very
much", saying the responsibility should instead fall to Europe.
===
This was on the BBC before the meeting, 27th February. Zelensky said he
wanted further agreements, not to renegotiate the one he was scheduled
to sign.
The whole meeting is available on YouTube, not just the cheery picked
piece of when Trump and Vance ran out of patience.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajxSWocbye8&ab_channel=TheWhiteHouse>
Our media seems to be dominated by shallow jingoistic propaganda.
Russia's interests seem to have been entirely ignored and
misrepresented. I can't see how the UK's interests have been served by
interfering in this dispute.
So the guarantee we, Russia and the US signed less than 30 years ago guaranteeing Ukraine's border counts for nothing? If Russia was interested in
peaceful cooperation they would be applying to join NATO, not opposing Ukraine
doing so.
If Putin gives us piece of paper promising to stop this side of Poland and before Germany, at least this week, will that satisfy your interpretation of realpolitik and Russia's "legitimate interests"?
I don't care because I'll be dead before Russia gets to the Channel, but are you seriously saying Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified?
Certainly it
will give them more money, more strategic commodities and more men.
On 15 Mar 2025 at 20:43:36 GMT, "Pancho" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/25 19:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 15/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote: >>>
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by
the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>> more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only >>> speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
Yes I've already posted a link in this thread.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7vg0nvzkko>
Quote:
===
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will meet US President Donald
Trump in Washington on Friday to sign an agreement on sharing his
country's mineral resources, Trump has said.
Zelensky has described the bilateral deal as preliminary, and said he
wants further agreements, which include US security guarantees to deter
renewed Russian aggression.
But Trump said the US would not provide guarantees "beyond... very
much", saying the responsibility should instead fall to Europe.
===
This was on the BBC before the meeting, 27th February. Zelensky said he
wanted further agreements, not to renegotiate the one he was scheduled
to sign.
The whole meeting is available on YouTube, not just the cheery picked
piece of when Trump and Vance ran out of patience.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajxSWocbye8&ab_channel=TheWhiteHouse>
Our media seems to be dominated by shallow jingoistic propaganda.
Russia's interests seem to have been entirely ignored and
misrepresented. I can't see how the UK's interests have been served by
interfering in this dispute.
So the guarantee we, Russia and the US signed less than 30 years ago guaranteeing Ukraine's border counts for nothing?
If Russia was interested in
peaceful cooperation they would be applying to join NATO, not opposing Ukraine
doing so.*
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
Russia is worse off
because Putin wrongly believed that Ukraine would be a pushover.
The EU is
worse off because it's having to deal with the fallout of the war of Putin's ego.
We have no way of knowing what might have happened in Ukraine had it
remained at peace.
So in what way has he done a good job?
Managing to keep Ukraine going as a functional country despite being the victim of entirely unprovoked aggression.
On 14/03/2025 12:30, JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2025 09:54 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 14/03/2025 09:36, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
So was Zelensky correct ?
Why does that matter? It really doesn't matter. This sounds like the
sort of petty argument that Larry David has with his friends in "Curb
Your Enthusiasm".
The issue isn't whether America has been generous in the past in its
support of Ukraine. The issue is why Trump and Vance tried to bully and
humiliate Zelensky on live TV in front of a large group of journalists,
when it served no purpose whatsoever except to feed Trump's ego. The
arguments should have been behind closed doors.
[ ... ]
My first reaction to that incident was incredulity that it took place on
*live* television rather than in private.
But later, we learned that is DID take place in private and that
agreements had already been concluded, with the television event a mere
ritual to announce what had been agreed with a public "signing".
During the live event, the Ukrainian president attempted to press the
USA to agree to, and give, more than it already had in private. This may
well have been at least partly due to his having been lionised by every
western government (deservedly or otherwise) and his feeling that the
normal rules of business didn't apply to him and that all he had to do
was ask and that the USA would be embarrassed into doing more than had
already been agreed.
Seen in that light, the falling-out that followed is rather more
explicable.
That isn't the version that was broadcast, so maybe you have a version
that was filmed for some future movie.
On 15/03/2025 20:42, Pancho wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
After WW2, Britain was hugely in debt, had to continue rationing for
several years, didn't pay off its debt to the USA until 2006. By any
metric I can think of, Britain was worse off than if we had given Hitler
what he wanted - which was not to invade the UK but to share all the
weaker countries and colonies with Britain.
So, should Churchill have surrendered? It's a point of view, I suppose.
On 14/03/2025 21:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent
wrote:
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is
difficult to
distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or
another,
of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all
likely that
the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on
international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>>>> arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked to me >>>> like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-skinned >>> imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up
as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
Indeed not.
Only Zelensky appears to be one of the few people around who didn't
already seem to realise that the person who he'd be dealing with was
a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler,
(in addition to being the elected President of the United States).
So what exactly does that say about Zelensky ?
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because on
live TV he thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to
give support.
Whether or not Zelensky contradicted Trump on any point is irrelevant. Trump's vanity is such that he likes to give away official secrets just
to show how important he is, regardless of the effect on others who are actually fighting a real war. The Russians would have assumed that
Trump spoke with expert knowledge of the situation and that they were
playing poker with a fuckwit who couldn't resist displaying his cards to everyone.
As for Vance, he was simply rude. I mean, if you were to have the good
luck to meet Vance in real life, the impulse to say "fuck off, you
talentless cunt" would be irresistible.
On 15/03/2025 20:52, The Todal wrote:
On 14/03/2025 21:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-14, Jeff Gaines <[email protected]> wrote:
On 14/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent
wrote:
Do you have any links to (verified) reports of that? It is
difficult to
distinguish between fact and fiction nowadays.
News reports. Always subject to rejection from one direction or
another,
of course.
Ask yourself the question I asked myself, though. Is it at all
likely that
the plan was for those negotiations to take place in public, on
international television visible in Moscow?
Of course it wasn't. The negotiations were over. Agreements had been >>>>>> arrived at. Then there was a televised public "signing session"...
Don't know, there have been reports in both directions. It looked
to me
like Zelenskyy was jumped.
Indeed. But if it wasn't planned, then the obvious question to ask is
whether one of the parties involved is famously a malicious thin-
skinned
imbecile with the mind of a toddler, who is well known for making it up >>>> as he goes along and a complete disregard for facts or consequences.
I think that description seems to ring a bell regarding one of the
people in the room, and I'm pretty sure it's not Zelenskyy.
Indeed not.
Only Zelensky appears to be one of the few people around who didn't
already seem to realise that the person who he'd be dealing with was
a malicious thin-skinned imbecile with the mind of a toddler,
(in addition to being the elected President of the United States).
So what exactly does that say about Zelensky ?
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because
on live TV he thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that
Ukraine holds no cards, is bound to lose, and America is no longer
willing to give support.
Regardless of how it came out, the first two of those are surely true.
And the longer the USA does give its military support, the longer the
war and the killing will go on. So, how then would it ever end?
A ceasefire is in the interests of any weaker party. Agreeing to one,
and especially having the USA on board able to put moral and financial pressure on the stronger party, isn't therefore such a bad position for Ukraine. As for Trump, he would be the one risking World War III and a
lot of cash by continuing to enable a fight in a country far away of
which he knows little, and which isn't even a member of NATO. To the average citizen of the USA, Ukraine is unlocatable on a map, irrelevant
and dispensable.
Whether or not Zelensky contradicted Trump on any point is irrelevant.
Trump's vanity is such that he likes to give away official secrets
just to show how important he is, regardless of the effect on others
who are actually fighting a real war. The Russians would have assumed
that Trump spoke with expert knowledge of the situation and that they
were playing poker with a fuckwit who couldn't resist displaying his
cards to everyone.
As for Vance, he was simply rude. I mean, if you were to have the good
luck to meet Vance in real life, the impulse to say "fuck off, you
talentless cunt" would be irresistible.
And he'd have won, because such abusive ad homs would show you don't
have any real argument on the facts and you're frustrated because you
don't.
On 3/15/25 21:09, The Todal wrote:
On 15/03/2025 20:42, Pancho wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
After WW2, Britain was hugely in debt, had to continue rationing for
several years, didn't pay off its debt to the USA until 2006. By any
metric I can think of, Britain was worse off than if we had given
Hitler what he wanted - which was not to invade the UK but to share
all the weaker countries and colonies with Britain.
So, should Churchill have surrendered? It's a point of view, I suppose.
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine. But there is another huge difference, Churchill won. A pyrrhic victory, possibly, but he didn't lose.
So the real comparison would have been if the UK lost WW2, would it have
been reasonable then?
So, not a good comparison.
JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2025 07:47 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
[in response to something snipped, ie:]
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be
covered by the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or
morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>> more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president
and VP?
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only >>> speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and
ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have
had to be cancelled.
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only speculation) is
that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
On 15/03/2025 23:13, Pancho wrote:
On 3/15/25 21:09, The Todal wrote:
On 15/03/2025 20:42, Pancho wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off
than when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is
worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
After WW2, Britain was hugely in debt, had to continue rationing for
several years, didn't pay off its debt to the USA until 2006. By any
metric I can think of, Britain was worse off than if we had given
Hitler what he wanted - which was not to invade the UK but to share
all the weaker countries and colonies with Britain.
So, should Churchill have surrendered? It's a point of view, I suppose.
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia
was more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine. But there is
another huge difference, Churchill won. A pyrrhic victory, possibly,
but he didn't lose.
So the real comparison would have been if the UK lost WW2, would it
have been reasonable then?
So, not a good comparison.
It's a good comparison.
On 16/03/2025 08:58 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2025 07:47 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
[in response to something snipped, ie:]
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be >>>>>> covered by the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or
morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which >>>>> were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>>> more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
One suspects tht you actually meant "Nothing".
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president
and VP?
What does that have to do with the issue under discussion?
If there ever has been a previous press conference or communiqué where negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view of
the cameras (broadcasting to the planet), please identify it as a
precedent.
If you cannot, it looks as though your answer is a piece of evasion,
does n't it?
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion
(only
speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and
ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have
had to be cancelled.
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only speculation) is
that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
One wonders how your "suspicion" arose, given that there is no precedent "live" negotiation in front of TV cameras connected to every
broadcasting system in the world.
On 3/16/25 09:38, The Todal wrote:
On 15/03/2025 23:13, Pancho wrote:
On 3/15/25 21:09, The Todal wrote:
On 15/03/2025 20:42, Pancho wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all. >>>>>>
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off
than when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is
worse off.
So in what way has he done a good job?
After WW2, Britain was hugely in debt, had to continue rationing for
several years, didn't pay off its debt to the USA until 2006. By any
metric I can think of, Britain was worse off than if we had given
Hitler what he wanted - which was not to invade the UK but to share
all the weaker countries and colonies with Britain.
So, should Churchill have surrendered? It's a point of view, I suppose. >>>>
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia
was more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine. But there is
another huge difference, Churchill won. A pyrrhic victory, possibly,
but he didn't lose.
So the real comparison would have been if the UK lost WW2, would it
have been reasonable then?
So, not a good comparison.
It's a good comparison.
No it isn't, we all understand what a pyrrhic victory is, there is no
need to explain it.
However, the real hidden assumption in such as comparison is that
defeating Nazi tyranny was a good thing to do, worth the cost. If we
hadn't, we would have suffered for 1000 years under the jackboot of the
Third Reich.
actual British establishment motivations were at the time, that is how
it is perceived now. The Nazi example is one of the most extreme good vs
evil examples, most wars are far more nuanced.
So unambiguous good vs evil doesn't apply to Ukraine vs Russia. The
goals of NATO + Ukraine seem more oppressive than the goals of Russia.
There is very little doubt that many ethnic Russian areas of Ukraine
wanted to be part of Russia, Crimea for instance. There is no doubt the
USA was using economic coercion to punish Russia for standing up to its military/economic hegemony, Syria for instance. Probably still trying to punish Russia for the cold war.
USA influence is self-interested, not benevolent, one only needs to look
at the economies of other countries in the Americas to see that. Russia
was quite right to want to defend itself.
So this was not as war of good vs evil, like the Nazi comparison.
Well, given that Ukraine was invaded, what else could he do? The fact
that he oversaw the defence and keeps doing so is a major achievement.
Of course everyone is worse off, but he is making the best of a bad job. Would things have been better for Ukraine if he had simply caved in?
On 3/16/25 08:37, Les. Hayward wrote:
Well, given that Ukraine was invaded, what else could he do? The fact
that he oversaw the defence and keeps doing so is a major achievement.
Of course everyone is worse off, but he is making the best of a bad job.
Would things have been better for Ukraine if he had simply caved in?
Yes, Ukraine should have compromised with Russia before the invasion,
and signed the peace deal on the table immediately after the invasion. Ukraine would be better off now if they had. I don't know how to make
that point more clearly.
I think you'll find the average Ukrainian in Lviv didn't care about
Crimea or the Donbas, any more than the average Londoner cares about
Northern Ireland.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which >>>>>were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on televison >>>>>more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
One suspects tht you actually meant "Nothing".
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where >>>negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president
and VP?
What does that have to do with the issue under discussion?
If there ever has been a previous press conference or communiqué where >negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view of
the cameras (broadcasting to the planet), please identify it as a
precedent.
If you cannot, it looks as though your answer is a piece of evasion, does
n't it?
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a >>>>security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion (only >>>>speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks >>>>(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and >>>ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have
had to be cancelled.
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only speculation) is >>that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
One wonders how your "suspicion" arose, given that there is no precedent >"live" negotiation in front of TV cameras connected to every broadcasting >system in the world.
On 16/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which >>>>>> were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on
televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
One suspects tht you actually meant "Nothing".
No, I mean something that has reasonable veracity.
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president
and VP?
What does that have to do with the issue under discussion?
The same as the question you asked!
If there ever has been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras (broadcasting to the planet), please identify it as a
precedent.
If you cannot, it looks as though your answer is a piece of evasion,
does n't it?
It was an answer to an irrelevant question.
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion
(only
speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and
ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have
had to be cancelled.
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only speculation) is >>> that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
One wonders how your "suspicion" arose, given that there is no
precedent "live" negotiation in front of TV cameras connected to every
broadcasting system in the world.
My suspicion arose because of the way Zelenskyy asked about the security package, it came across to me as if he was reminding them of a point
that was glossed over in the private meeting.
On 16/03/2025 12:33, JNugent wrote:
On 16/03/2025 08:58 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 15/03/2025 07:47 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
[in response to something snipped, ie:]
I find it interesting that you should think the negotiations to be >>>>>>> covered by the rules of business, rather than, say, diplomacy or >>>>>>> morality.
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy which >>>>>> were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on
televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
One suspects tht you actually meant "Nothing".
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president
and VP?
What does that have to do with the issue under discussion?
If there ever has been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras (broadcasting to the planet), please identify it as a
precedent.
If you cannot, it looks as though your answer is a piece of evasion,
does n't it?
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion
(only
speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and
ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have
had to be cancelled.
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only speculation) is >>> that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
One wonders how your "suspicion" arose, given that there is no
precedent "live" negotiation in front of TV cameras connected to every
broadcasting system in the world.
Trump, like Boris Johnson, is not a detail man. If he was doing any
glossing it would have been to conceal his profound ignorance of
politics and geography and to big-up his brilliant skills as a
peacemaker and prepare the ground for his Nobel Peace Prize nomination.
The notorious press conference was designed to show that Trump had made
some sort of breakthrough with Putin, his very good friend who had
shared so many traumas with Trump, so much unjust persecution.
Trump
wanted everyone to know that Ukraine was ready to give in. He presumably wanted the Russians to know that. There never was a security package,
just the expectation that with wealthy American companies mining on
Ukrainian land and pocketing huge profits, this would persuade Putin to
avoid antagonising them and maybe to share in some of the spoils.
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because on live TV he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
As for Vance, he was simply rude.
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
On 3/15/25 21:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
The obvious point is, could Zelensky have prevented the invasion before
it happened? Could he have ended the war soon after it began? I think he >could have.
But it wasn't entirely unprovoked. Russia's interests were being
threatened by the situation in Ukraine. You might think that reasonable,
but it was not entirely unprovoked.
It's no good him trying to blind them with facts and statistics
from research papers when these will fly straight over their
heads. So why bother ? To keep up with things just follow the
latest hot topics on Fox News.
This has probably always been true of most US voters only Hilary
and Kamala wouldn't want to compromise themselves by admitting
as much.
Hillary (I had to check the spelling!) had a good go at it, though.
In a speech in New York City on September 9, 2016, she described Republican voters as
(among other things) "deplorable".
On 3/15/25 21:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off.
Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
The obvious point is, could Zelensky have prevented the invasion before
it happened?
Russia is worse off
because Putin wrongly believed that Ukraine would be a pushover.
I'm not convinced you provide the best insight as to what Putin wanted.
I don't think he expressed that view himself.
But it wasn't entirely unprovoked. Russia's interests were being
threatened by the situation in Ukraine. You might think that reasonable,
but it was not entirely unprovoked.
On 15/03/2025 10:10 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
While Trump may have used bankruptcy as a technical measure the
fact remains he owns Mar El Largo, at least one golf course in Scotland
and a 600 ft Building on 5th Avenue with his name on it presumably
among other things. Which is a lot more than any of his critics can
boast. Unless there are any "Sour Grapes Towers" knocking around
anywhere.
There's the huge Trump Hotel just off Las Vegas Boulevard South. It's quite near the
famous bend in that boulevard and is visible all the way from the airport right through
to the "old town" (Fremont Street area).
Many millions of visitors from all over the world have had the name imprinted on their
memory from a sighting of that building.
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:16:35 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/15/25 21:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> >>> wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all.
By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than
when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off. >>>
The obvious point is, could Zelensky have prevented the invasion before
it happened? Could he have ended the war soon after it began? I think he
could have.
How do you think he could, and should, have done so? What would have been your solution to getting Russia to end the invasion and withdraw from all occupied territories?
But it wasn't entirely unprovoked. Russia's interests were being
threatened by the situation in Ukraine. You might think that reasonable,
but it was not entirely unprovoked.
Russia's interests were only "threatened" in the sense that Putin couldn't cope with the idea of having a genuine democracy as a neighbour rather than
a client state.
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has political opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not.
Are you really
saying that if you had to choose to be ruled by one or the other this
would be a difficult choice?
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has political opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not. Are you really
saying that if you had to choose to be ruled by one or the other this
would be a difficult choice?
Russia's interests were only "threatened" in the sense that Putin
couldn't cope with the idea of having a genuine democracy as a
neighbour rather than a client state.
On 3/16/25 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia was >>> more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has political
opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not.
I'm not sure how fair that is. Why do you characterise Ukrainian
elections as fairer than Russian ones?
Both countries have electoral corruption. Zelensky has cancelled
elections, banned opposition parties, and threatened opposition
leaders with charges of treason.
Before Zelensky, Ukraine had a revolution, incited by the US,
overthrowing the elected government. In the last election, 18% of the "Ukrainian" electorate could not vote.
I'm surprised that you would highlight political opponents being
arrested. I can't remember you criticising political arrests and
prisoners in the UK.
A lot of journalists have been arrested recently. Did you criticise
Assange's imprisonment?
Are you really saying that if you had to choose to be ruled by one or
the other this would be a difficult choice?
Not really difficult, I would choose Putin.
On 16/03/2025 01:13 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent
wrote:
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy
which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on
televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
One suspects tht you actually meant "Nothing".
No, I mean something that has reasonable veracity.
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where >>>>> negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view >>>>> of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president
and VP?
What does that have to do with the issue under discussion?
The same as the question you asked!
If there ever has been a previous press conference or communiqué where
negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras (broadcasting to the planet), please identify it as a
precedent.
If you cannot, it looks as though your answer is a piece of evasion,
does n't it?
It was an answer to an irrelevant question.
It cannot possible be anything other than *highly* relevant to point out
that public signing rituals come AFTER negotiation, discussion and
agreement.
As we have seen, no-one has yet cited any previous case where
negotiations are re-opened by one party, live on TV visible to the world.
But perhaps you can yet do it.
This is the place to provide the evidence (if any).
As I asked:
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a
security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion >>>>>> (only
speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks
(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
If that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and >>>>> ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have >>>>> had to be cancelled.
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only
speculation) is
that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
One wonders how your "suspicion" arose, given that there is no
precedent "live" negotiation in front of TV cameras connected to every
broadcasting system in the world.
My suspicion arose because of the way Zelenskyy asked about the security
package, it came across to me as if he was reminding them of a point
that was glossed over in the private meeting.
I am as sure as you are that Zelenskyy knows that that is not how such
things are dealt with.
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way in
which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the
agreement.
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because on live TV he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no cards to play"
on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some people around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe absolutely anything Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds would
believe a single word he said.
So which is it ?
As for Vance, he was simply rude.
Oh really ?
quote:
Vance: "For four years, in the United States of America, we had a
president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about
Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a
significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path
to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy.
Vance: "I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to end
the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate
this in front of the American media
: unquote
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/transcript-of-donald-trump-jd-vance-zelensky-clash-in-white-house-great-television-101740823879184.html
Now maybe we were brought up differently, but according to my way of thinking Vance was being polite. In fact excessively polite under the circumstances.
Whereas if you really want rude, then maybe
"Hey ! Listen up F*ckface ! Listen to the Prez ! And smarten yourself up
next time !"
Would more likely fit the bill.
A point from your other post - leaving aside the fate of the Jews
(and the Japanese) you appear to be overlooking the most far reaching consequence of Britain making Peace with Hitler. Everyone, the US
included, would now be free to turn their attention to Stalin, invade
the USSR at the most propitious time and destroy communism for good.
On 3/16/25 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia was >>> more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has political
opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not.
I'm not sure how fair that is. Why do you characterise Ukrainian
elections as fairer than Russian ones? Both countries have electoral corruption. Zelensky has cancelled elections, banned opposition parties,
and threatened opposition leaders with charges of treason. Before
Zelensky, Ukraine had a revolution, incited by the US, overthrowing the elected government. In the last election, 18% of the "Ukrainian"
electorate could not vote.
I'm surprised that you would highlight political opponents being
arrested. I can't remember you criticising political arrests and
prisoners in the UK.
A lot of journalists have been arrested recently. Did you criticise
Assange's imprisonment?
Are you really
saying that if you had to choose to be ruled by one or the other this
would be a difficult choice?
Not really difficult, I would choose Putin. I understand he is to an
extent a tyrant, but I think he is more competent, does a better job for
his country. How well a leader runs the country is the primary concern.
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because
on live TV he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds
no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no
cards to play"
on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some people
around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe absolutely
anything
Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds would
believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I think
Trump has a reputation for "honesty" which goes down well with the
American people. He says what he thinks. The fact that he might easily
change his mind the same day or in a day or two, is a different matter.
On 17/03/2025 12:34 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/16/25 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's Russia
was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has political >>> opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not.
I'm not sure how fair that is. Why do you characterise Ukrainian
elections as fairer than Russian ones? Both countries have electoral
corruption. Zelensky has cancelled elections, banned opposition parties,
and threatened opposition leaders with charges of treason. Before
Zelensky, Ukraine had a revolution, incited by the US, overthrowing the
elected government. In the last election, 18% of the "Ukrainian"
electorate could not vote.
I'm surprised that you would highlight political opponents being
arrested. I can't remember you criticising political arrests and
prisoners in the UK.
A lot of journalists have been arrested recently. Did you criticise
Assange's imprisonment?
I hope you are not claiming that "journalists" (though it's hard to see Assange's qualifications in that area) who commit crimes are exempt from arrest and prosecution.
The point is, if your ally is fighting a war and is vulnerable, it is
crassly stupid to point that out to the world as Trump did.
On 16/03/2025 13:30, JNugent wrote:
On 16/03/2025 01:13 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent
wrote:
I was surprised precisely because it WAS the rules of diplomacy >>>>>>>> which
were being breached, with a participant trying to extract on
televison
more than had been agreed before the public "communique".
Is there any verifiable evidence of that?
What? What evidence would you accept?
No idea, something that has reasonable veracity.
One suspects tht you actually meant "Nothing".
No, I mean something that has reasonable veracity.
Has there ever been a previous press conference or communiqué where >>>>>> negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view >>>>>> of the cameras?
Has there ever been such a rude and arrogant combination of president >>>>> and VP?
What does that have to do with the issue under discussion?
The same as the question you asked!
If there ever has been a previous press conference or communiqué where >>>> negotiations continued in the glare of the TV lights and in full view
of the cameras (broadcasting to the planet), please identify it as a
precedent.
If you cannot, it looks as though your answer is a piece of evasion,
does n't it?
It was an answer to an irrelevant question.
It cannot possible be anything other than *highly* relevant to point
out that public signing rituals come AFTER negotiation, discussion and
agreement.
As we have seen, no-one has yet cited any previous case where
negotiations are re-opened by one party, live on TV visible to the world.
But perhaps you can yet do it.
This is the place to provide the evidence (if any).
As I asked:
If so, where? When? Who took part?
Zelenskyy made it very clear in many interviews beforehand that a >>>>>>> security package was a key part of any minerals deal. My suspicion >>>>>>> (onlyIf that is the case, he should not have agreed to what he agreed and >>>>>> ought not to have taken part in the pess conference, which would have >>>>>> had to be cancelled.
speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in the private talks >>>>>>> (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him. >>>>>
Sheesh...
I think you may have missed my point "My suspicion (only
speculation) is
that Trump glossed over that in the private talks (without flatly
refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
One wonders how your "suspicion" arose, given that there is no
precedent "live" negotiation in front of TV cameras connected to every >>>> broadcasting system in the world.
My suspicion arose because of the way Zelenskyy asked about the security >>> package, it came across to me as if he was reminding them of a point
that was glossed over in the private meeting.
I am as sure as you are that Zelenskyy knows that that is not how such
things are dealt with.
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way in
which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the
agreement.
Zelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see that in
this badly organized press conference Trump was effectively announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American support from
Ukraine.
Rather than sit and nod, he wanted to reassure his own people
and the Russians that it would have to be conditional on security
guarantees.
He was promptly slapped down by Trump and Vance. And Trump
was no doubt horrified by the reaction of the American press which
rightly saw it as bullying behaviour by Trump and incompetent
negotiating by the fraud whose book "Art of the Deal" was ghost-written.
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because
on live TV he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds
no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no
cards to play"
on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some people
around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe absolutely
anything
Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds would
believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I think
Trump has a reputation for "honesty" which goes down well with the
American people. He says what he thinks. The fact that he might easily
change his mind the same day or in a day or two, is a different matter.
The point is, if your ally is fighting a war and is vulnerable, it is
crassly stupid to point that out to the world as Trump did. During WW2
we had a lot of ingenious plans to fool the Germans - cardboard tanks
massed in fields as if waiting to be shipped to France. You don't need
some bozo announcing in public that the production of cardboard tanks
now exceeds all targets.
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way in >>>which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the >>>agreement.
Zelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see that in >>this badly organized press conference Trump was effectively announcing >>Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American support from
Ukraine.
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees had
been made public prior to the meeting.
Rather than sit and nod, he wanted to reassure his own people and the >>Russians that it would have to be conditional on security guarantees.
The agreement he was there to sign was not conditional on security >guarantees. Zelenskyy was playing the victim for the US media. He was
using the meeting in an attempt to influence the US public.
He was promptly slapped down by Trump and Vance. And Trump was no doubt >>horrified by the reaction of the American press which rightly saw it as >>bullying behaviour by Trump and incompetent negotiating by the fraud
whose book "Art of the Deal" was ghost-written.
Trump is political, which is why at first he tried to humour Zelenskyy. >Eventually it got to the point where Vance felt he needed to take firm
action to deter future behaviour. There is a cost to fighting your corner >rather than meekly agreeing. Trump also felt the meeting had reached the >point that the cost was worth paying.
I think Trump will have deterred people behaving like Zelenskyy in future.
On 3/16/25 20:26, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:16:35 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]>That is a leading question.
wrote:
On 3/15/25 21:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all. >>>>>>By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than >>>>> when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off. >>>>
The obvious point is, could Zelensky have prevented the invasion before
it happened? Could he have ended the war soon after it began? I think he >>> could have.
How do you think he could, and should, have done so? What would have been
your solution to getting Russia to end the invasion and withdraw from all
occupied territories?
He should have ceded Crimea, recognised Donetsk and Luhansk as
independent states (or semi autonomous regions),
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:39:57 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/16/25 20:26, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:16:35 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> >>> wrote:That is a leading question.
On 3/15/25 21:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all. >>>>>>>By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than >>>>>> when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off. >>>>>
The obvious point is, could Zelensky have prevented the invasion before >>>> it happened? Could he have ended the war soon after it began? I think he >>>> could have.
How do you think he could, and should, have done so? What would have been >>> your solution to getting Russia to end the invasion and withdraw from all >>> occupied territories?
He should have ceded Crimea, recognised Donetsk and Luhansk as
independent states (or semi autonomous regions),
So you think that Zelensky should have agreed to making Ukraine horrendously worse off than it was when he was elected, and because he has resisted doing so, that means he's done a bad job?
Mark
On 3/17/25 10:31, JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2025 12:34 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/16/25 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's
Russia was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has
political
opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not.
I'm not sure how fair that is. Why do you characterise Ukrainian
elections as fairer than Russian ones? Both countries have electoral
corruption. Zelensky has cancelled elections, banned opposition parties, >>> and threatened opposition leaders with charges of treason. Before
Zelensky, Ukraine had a revolution, incited by the US, overthrowing the
elected government. In the last election, 18% of the "Ukrainian"
electorate could not vote.
I'm surprised that you would highlight political opponents being
arrested. I can't remember you criticising political arrests and
prisoners in the UK.
A lot of journalists have been arrested recently. Did you criticise
Assange's imprisonment?
I hope you are not claiming that "journalists" (though it's hard to
see Assange's qualifications in that area) who commit crimes are
exempt from arrest and prosecution.
There are similarities between Navalny and Assange.
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to attack journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
More recently, we have justice system attacks on Asa Winstanley, Tony Greenstein, Richard Medhurst, Ali Abunimah, etc. In the West we appear
to be living in a period of censorship/repression of free speech not
seen since McCarthyism.
Earlier in the thread, I made the Northern Ireland comparison. A country
of people unwilling to compromise. Unable to govern themselves. I
wouldn't mind if NI left the UK, but I'm not convinced the South would
want it either.
On 2025-03-17, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Earlier in the thread, I made the Northern Ireland comparison. A country
of people unwilling to compromise. Unable to govern themselves. I
wouldn't mind if NI left the UK, but I'm not convinced the South would
want it either.
Why do people keep suggesting the Republic of Ireland might not accept reunification, when polls show that a large majority of people there
support it? The idea it would refuse is absolutely nonsensical.
A point from your other post - leaving aside the fate of the Jews
(and the Japanese) you appear to be overlooking the most far reaching
consequence of Britain making Peace with Hitler. Everyone, the US
included, would now be free to turn their attention to Stalin, invade
the USSR at the most propitious time and destroy communism for good.
Which would certainly have been part of Hitler's plan. To have England co-operate with
Germany in defeating the Soviet Union.
On 17/03/2025 01:06 PM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/17/25 10:31, JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2025 12:34 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 3/16/25 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-03-15, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Well, Putin isn't Hitler. It isn't obvious to me that Putin's
Russia was
more corrupt and evil than Zelensky's Ukraine.
Eh? Putin is a dictator, Zelenskyy is not. Putin regularly has
political
opponents arrested or assassinated, Zelenskyy does not.
I'm not sure how fair that is. Why do you characterise Ukrainian
elections as fairer than Russian ones? Both countries have electoral
corruption. Zelensky has cancelled elections, banned opposition parties, >>>> and threatened opposition leaders with charges of treason. Before
Zelensky, Ukraine had a revolution, incited by the US, overthrowing the >>>> elected government. In the last election, 18% of the "Ukrainian"
electorate could not vote.
I'm surprised that you would highlight political opponents being
arrested. I can't remember you criticising political arrests and
prisoners in the UK.
A lot of journalists have been arrested recently. Did you criticise
Assange's imprisonment?
I hope you are not claiming that "journalists" (though it's hard to
see Assange's qualifications in that area) who commit crimes are
exempt from arrest and prosecution.
There are similarities between Navalny and Assange.
Whatever.
Is Assange a "journalist"?
If you think he is, what qualifies him as one, in your opinion?
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to attack
journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
More recently, we have justice system attacks on Asa Winstanley, Tony
Greenstein, Richard Medhurst, Ali Abunimah, etc. In the West we appear
to be living in a period of censorship/repression of free speech not
seen since McCarthyism.
There is such a thing as classified information and Official Secrets.
On 17/03/2025 10:17, The Todal wrote:
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because on live TV he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no cards to play"
on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some people >>> around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe absolutely anything >>> Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds would
believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I think Trump has a
reputation for "honesty" which goes down well with the American people. He says what
he thinks. The fact that he might easily change his mind the same day or in a day or
two, is a different matter.
Just to add to that: during the notorious Press Conference one might be forgiven for
thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early signs of dementia.
This is a little-quoted extract from what he said in front of all the cameras, and
obviously it was all about his own obsessions with injustice and nothing to do with
making peace between Ukraine and Russia.
quote
Vance: "She's asking what if Russia breaks the cease fire?"
Trump: "What if anything? What if a bomb drops on your head right now? Okay, what if
they broke it? I don't know. They broke it with Biden because Biden didn't respect him.
They didn't respect Obama. They respect me. Let me tell you, Putin went through a hell
of a lot with me. He went through a phony witch hunt where they used him and Russia,
Russia, Russia, Russia ... You ever hear of that deal? That was a phony. That was a
phony Hunter Biden, Joe Biden scam. Hillary Clinton, shifty Adam Schiff, it was a
Democrat scam. And he had to go through that. And he did go through it. We didn't end
up in a war. And he went through it. He was accused of all that stuff. He had nothing
to do with it. It came out of Hunter Biden's bathroom. It came out of Hunter Biden's
bedroom. It was disgusting. And then they said, oh, oh, the laptop from hell was made
by Russia. The 51 agents The whole thing was a scam. And he had to put up with that. He
was being accused of all that stuff. All I can say is this: he might have broken deals
with Obama and Bush, and he might have broken them with Biden. He did maybe, maybe he
didn't. I don't know what happened, but he didn't break them with me. He wants to make
a deal. .The problem is I've empowered you to be a tough guy, and I don't think you'd
be a tough guy without the United States. And your people are very brave, but you're
either going to make a deal or we're out, and if we're out, you'll fight it out.
On 3/17/25 15:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 00:39:57 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/16/25 20:26, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 23:16:35 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> >>>> wrote:That is a leading question.
On 3/15/25 21:32, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 15 Mar 2025 20:42:28 +0000, Pancho <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/15/25 11:11, Les. Hayward wrote:Ukraine is hugely worse off because Russia invaded it.
Ex comedian so what? - he is currently not doing a bad job at all. >>>>>>>>By almost any metric I can think of, Ukraine is hugely worse off than >>>>>>> when Zelensky assumed office. Russia is worse off. The EU is worse off. >>>>>>
The obvious point is, could Zelensky have prevented the invasion before >>>>> it happened? Could he have ended the war soon after it began? I think he >>>>> could have.
How do you think he could, and should, have done so? What would have been >>>> your solution to getting Russia to end the invasion and withdraw from all >>>> occupied territories?
He should have ceded Crimea, recognised Donetsk and Luhansk as
independent states (or semi autonomous regions),
So you think that Zelensky should have agreed to making Ukraine horrendously >> worse off than it was when he was elected, and because he has resisted doing >> so, that means he's done a bad job?
You asked me what Zelensky, should have done after the Russian invasion
in 2022. Yet you want to measure the effect from 2019? There were a lot
of actions Ukraine could have taken between 2019 and 2022 to end the
civil war and normalise relations with Russia.
Zelensky's bad decisions are like a ratchet, each one locks Ukraine into
a worse future, you can mitigate what happens from that point forward,
but you cannot undo the harm that has been done.
Even having said that. I do not accept that partitioning Ukraine along
ethnic lines would have made it horrendously worse off.
Ukraine has done very badly since splitting from the Soviet Union. A
very corrupt country that made many bad decisions prior to Euromaidan,
prior to Zelensky.
snip
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message >news:[email protected]...
On 17/03/2025 10:17, The Todal wrote:
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because on live TV he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no cards to play"
on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some people >>>> around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe absolutely anything >>>> Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds would
believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I think Trump has a
reputation for "honesty" which goes down well with the American people. He says what
he thinks. The fact that he might easily change his mind the same day or in a day or
two, is a different matter.
Just to add to that: during the notorious Press Conference one might be forgiven for
thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early signs of dementia.
Eh ?
For Trump, what you quote below looks pretty coherent to me.
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:15:01 "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>news:[email protected]...
On 17/03/2025 10:17, The Todal wrote:
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2,
because on live TV he thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the
world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is bound to lose, and America
is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no
cards to play" on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some
people around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe
absolutely anything Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds
would believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I
think Trump has a reputation for "honesty" which goes down well
with the American people. He says what he thinks. The fact that he
might easily change his mind the same day or in a day or two, is a
different matter.
Just to add to that: during the notorious Press Conference one might
be forgiven for thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early signs of
dementia.
Eh ?
For Trump, what you quote below looks pretty coherent to me.
That "For trump" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there :-)
The hypothesis that Trump is in cognitive decline isn't new. Several
people better qualified than random Usenet commentors have made
similar statements.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ trump-mental-health-fears-cognitive-decline-b2625124.html
https://newrepublic.com/post/184690/cognitive-decline- experts-find-evidence-trumps-mind-slowing
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/16/opinion/trump- cognitive-decline-press-republicans/
https://as.cornell.edu/news/trumps-abrupt-decision-play-dj- sign-accelerating-cognitive-decline-says-cornell-expert
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/26/hastening-his-deterioration- dr-john-gartner-on-impact-of-trials-on-trumps-fragile-brain/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/confused-incoherent-trumps- speeches-show-signs-of-mental-decline-nyt-analysis/
Mark
On 21:04 17 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:15:01 "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 17/03/2025 10:17, The Todal wrote:
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2,
because on live TV he thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the
world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is bound to lose, and America >>>>>>> is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no
cards to play" on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some >>>>>> people around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe
absolutely anything Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds
would believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I
think Trump has a reputation for "honesty" which goes down well
with the American people. He says what he thinks. The fact that he
might easily change his mind the same day or in a day or two, is a
different matter.
Just to add to that: during the notorious Press Conference one might
be forgiven for thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early signs of
dementia.
Eh ?
For Trump, what you quote below looks pretty coherent to me.
That "For trump" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there :-)
The hypothesis that Trump is in cognitive decline isn't new. Several
people better qualified than random Usenet commentors have made
similar statements.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/
trump-mental-health-fears-cognitive-decline-b2625124.html
https://newrepublic.com/post/184690/cognitive-decline-
experts-find-evidence-trumps-mind-slowing
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/16/opinion/trump-
cognitive-decline-press-republicans/
https://as.cornell.edu/news/trumps-abrupt-decision-play-dj-
sign-accelerating-cognitive-decline-says-cornell-expert
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/26/hastening-his-deterioration-
dr-john-gartner-on-impact-of-trials-on-trumps-fragile-brain/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/confused-incoherent-trumps-
speeches-show-signs-of-mental-decline-nyt-analysis/
Mark
At the beginning of his first term, Trump's incoherent rambling speech was far worse than now.
If he was ill, then he has made an impressive recovery. Although I tend to think the main cause was probably medication side effects.
One shouldn't be too quick to write off Trump's health. He confounds those critical of his health.
Pancho wrote:
[snipped]
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way
in which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the
agreement.
in this badly organized press conference Trump was effectivelyZelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see that
announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American
support from Ukraine.
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees
had been made public prior to the meeting.
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement was conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump glossed over
that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding him. I have had
to do that on occasions after business meetings when reporting back'
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:15:01 -0000, "billy bookcase" <[email protected]> wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>news:[email protected]...
On 17/03/2025 10:17, The Todal wrote:
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2, because on live TV
he
thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is
bound to lose, and America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had no cards to play"
on live TV, Putin would have been none the wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are some people >>>>> around somewhere, who are actually prepared to believe absolutely anything
Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds would
believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I think Trump has a
reputation for "honesty" which goes down well with the American people. He says what
he thinks. The fact that he might easily change his mind the same day or in a day or
two, is a different matter.
Just to add to that: during the notorious Press Conference one might be forgiven for
thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early signs of dementia.
Eh ?
For Trump, what you quote below looks pretty coherent to me.
That "For trump" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there :-)
The hypothesis that Trump is in cognitive decline isn't new. Several people better qualified than random Usenet commentors have made similar statements.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-mental-health-fears-cognitive-decline-b2625124.html
https://newrepublic.com/post/184690/cognitive-decline-experts-find-evidence-trumps-mind-slowing
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/16/opinion/trump-cognitive-decline-press-republicans/
https://as.cornell.edu/news/trumps-abrupt-decision-play-dj-sign-accelerating-cognitive-decline-says-cornell-expert
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/26/hastening-his-deterioration-dr-john-gartner-on-impact-of-trials-on-trumps-fragile-brain/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/confused-incoherent-trumps-speeches-show-signs-of-mental-decline-nyt-analysis/
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
Pancho wrote:
There are similarities between Navalny and Assange.
Whatever.
Is Assange a "journalist"?
If you think he is, what qualifies him as one, in your opinion?
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to attack
journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
More recently, we have justice system attacks on Asa Winstanley, Tony
Greenstein, Richard Medhurst, Ali Abunimah, etc. In the West we appear
to be living in a period of censorship/repression of free speech not
seen since McCarthyism.
There is such a thing as classified information and Official Secrets.
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime), depending how you got them.
one might be forgiven for thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early
signs of dementia.
On 17/03/2025 02:27 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Pancho wrote:[JN:]
[snipped]
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way >>>>>in which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the >>>>>agreement.
Zelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see that >>>>in this badly organized press conference Trump was effectively >>>>announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American >>>>support from Ukraine.
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees
had been made public prior to the meeting.
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement was >>conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump glossed over
that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding him. I have had
to do that on occasions after business meetings when reporting back'
Ahem... do you have verifiable and verified evidence for whatever it is
that moves you to "suspect" that?
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime), depending how you got them.
c) What is indeed true is that at Trump's age it is reasonable to expect
some degree of mental deterioration. And so there will be no shortage of experts around willing to confirm that fact, and point to what they claim
as evidence. Although quite how any of those self same experts would fare, when expected to produce a satisfactory answer on a topic of which they themselves knew absolutely nothing, say automatic gearboxes, is maybe
another matter.
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime),
depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
Where difficulty may arise, would be where someone
inadvertently stated an Official Secret - the precise location
of the Post Office Tower is apocryphally one such, without
actually realising, that this was an Official Secret
Which of course they shouldn't; and so wouldn't
Of course, there is no crime in inadvertently (and therefore unknowingly) learning something which is an Official Secret. Just as there is no crime
in unknowingly acquiring stolen goods.
But knowingly selling or publishing secret information is definitely an offence.
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to attack >>>> journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
[to Pancho:]
That makes Assange a "journalist", does it?
On 2025-03-17, Pancho <[email protected]> wrote:
Earlier in the thread, I made the Northern Ireland comparison. A country
of people unwilling to compromise. Unable to govern themselves. I
wouldn't mind if NI left the UK, but I'm not convinced the South would
want it either.
Why do people keep suggesting the Republic of Ireland might not accept reunification, when polls show that a large majority of people there
support it? The idea it would refuse is absolutely nonsensical.
On 3/17/25 14:27, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 17/03/2025 in message <vr97cg$36in$[email protected]> Pancho wrote:
[snipped]
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way
in which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate
the agreement.
Zelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see
that in this badly organized press conference Trump was effectively
announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American
support from Ukraine.
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees
had been made public prior to the meeting.
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement
was conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump glossed
over that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding him. I
have had to do that on occasions after business meetings when
reporting back'
The thing is, the meeting was a signing ceremony.
On 17/03/2025 in message <vr97cg$36in$[email protected]> Pancho wrote:
[snipped]
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way
in which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the
agreement.
Zelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see that
in this badly organized press conference Trump was effectively
announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American
support from Ukraine.
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees
had been made public prior to the meeting.
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement was conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump glossed over
that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding him. I have had
to do that on occasions after business meetings when reporting back'
On 3/18/25 01:39, JNugent wrote:
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to attack >>>>> journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
[to Pancho:]
That makes Assange a "journalist", does it?
Assange was involved in the publishing of news (newly received or
noteworthy information, especially about recent events.)
So he was a journalist.
I don't see what possible objection you could have to my use of the word?
On 17 Mar 2025 at 23:27:56 GMT, "Pamela"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 21:04 17 Mar 2025, Mark Goodge said:
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:15:01 "billy bookcase" <[email protected]>:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 17/03/2025 10:17, The Todal wrote:
On 16/03/2025 13:54, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It's a good thing that Trump wasn't the President during WW2,
because on live TV he thought it best to tell Zelensky, and the >>>>>>>> world, that Ukraine holds no cards, is bound to lose, and
America is no longer willing to give support.
Do you *really think* that had Trump not told Zelensky "he had
no cards to play" on live TV, Putin would have been none the
wiser ?
And in any case you now appear to be conceding that there are
some people around somewhere, who are actually prepared to
believe absolutely anything Trump says.
When before, weren't you claiming nobody in their right minds
would believe a single word he said.
I don't recall ever saying that. I certainly don't believe it. I
think Trump has a reputation for "honesty" which goes down well
with the American people. He says what he thinks. The fact that
he might easily change his mind the same day or in a day or two,
is a different matter.
Just to add to that: during the notorious Press Conference one
might be forgiven for thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early
signs of dementia.
Eh ?
For Trump, what you quote below looks pretty coherent to me.
That "For trump" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there :-)
The hypothesis that Trump is in cognitive decline isn't new. Several
people better qualified than random Usenet commentors have made
similar statements.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/
trump-mental-health-fears-cognitive-decline-b2625124.html
https://newrepublic.com/post/184690/cognitive-decline-
experts-find-evidence-trumps-mind-slowing
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/16/opinion/trump-
cognitive-decline-press-republicans/
https://as.cornell.edu/news/trumps-abrupt-decision-play-dj-
sign-accelerating-cognitive-decline-says-cornell-expert
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/26/hastening-his-deterioration-
dr-john-gartner-on-impact-of-trials-on-trumps-fragile-brain/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/confused-incoherent-trumps-
speeches-show-signs-of-mental-decline-nyt-analysis/
Mark
At the beginning of his first term, Trump's incoherent rambling
speech was far worse than now.
If he was ill, then he has made an impressive recovery. Although I
tend to think the main cause was probably medication side effects.
One shouldn't be too quick to write off Trump's health. He confounds
those critical of his health.
I agree. He probably deliberately uses a simple vocabulary to
communicate with his base, as does Murdoch. The Sun writes for a
reading age of 7 to 9 years. It is generally possible to work out approximately what he means, and he no doubt thinks his supporters
believe his rambling and incoherent style is comfortable and just like
them. He is not too precise in what he says; but after all more
conventional politicians use a pompous and long-winded style to avoid answering uncomfortable questions, and he uses rambling incoherence.
Quite a clever way to do it.
The Todal wrote:
one might be forgiven for thinking that Trump is now exhibiting early
signs of dementia.
He certainly seems to parrot himself, repeating what he said a few
seconds ago, as though he can't think of anything new to fill his
time.
On 18/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2025 02:27 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Pancho wrote:[JN:]
[snipped]
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way >>>>>> in which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the >>>>>> agreement.
in this badly organized press conference Trump was effectivelyZelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see >>>>>>> that
announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American
support from Ukraine.
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees
had been made public prior to the meeting.
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement was
conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump glossed over
that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding him. I have had
to do that on occasions after business meetings when reporting back'
Ahem... do you have verifiable and verified evidence for whatever it
is that moves you to "suspect" that?
Life experience and watching the interview.
It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over
that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy
raised it to remind him."
I haven't, and don't, claim it as fact as I have made very clear.
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
[…]
Of course, there is no crime in inadvertently (and therefore unknowingly)
learning something which is an Official Secret. Just as there is no crime
in unknowingly acquiring stolen goods.
As far as Official Secrets are concerned, wasn’t the ‘inadvertently’ qualifier central to the (in)famous ABC trial of the 1970s, which enabled A and C to get a light punishment? B had broken the OSA by passing on classified information, so had his knuckles (gently) rapped.
There was something about jury vetting that leaked out, IIRC.
But knowingly selling or publishing secret information is definitely an offence.
Of course.
On 18/03/2025 08:37 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 18/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2025 02:27 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
Pancho wrote:[JN:]
[snipped]
But to repeat, perhaps someone can point to a precedent for the way >>>>>>>in which one party to the signing ceremony sought to re-litigate the >>>>>>>agreement.
in this badly organized press conference Trump was effectively >>>>>>announcing Ukraine's surrender and/or the withdrawal of American >>>>>>support from Ukraine.Zelensky did not seek to re-litigate the agreement. He could see >>>>>>>>that
Trump didn't announce anything new. The lack of security guarantees >>>>>had been made public prior to the meeting.
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement was >>>>conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump glossed over >>>>that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding him. I have had >>>>to do that on occasions after business meetings when reporting back'
Ahem... do you have verifiable and verified evidence for whatever it
is that moves you to "suspect" that?
Life experience and watching the interview.
That is verifiable, is it?
How can anyone do that with your claims?
It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over >>that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy
raised it to remind him."
I haven't, and don't, claim it as fact as I have made very clear.
Suspecting it is all I asked you about.
And you have confirmed that you have no reason for that.
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime), >>> depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
That's not correct. The Official Secrets Act provisions generally
only apply to "members of the security and intelligence services",
"Crown servants", and "government contractors". It can also apply
to people who have been "notified" that it applies to them, which
is what the "signing the Act" thing is about - it's an evidence
trail so you can't deny that you were notified. Not to mention it
probably works psychologically to make people take the secrecy
stuff seriously.
On 3/18/25 01:39, JNugent wrote:
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to attack >>>>> journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
[to Pancho:]
That makes Assange a "journalist", does it?
Assange was involved in the publishing of news (newly received or
noteworthy information, especially about recent events.)
So he was a journalist.
I don't see what possible objection you could have to my use of the word?
On 17/03/2025 22:35, billy bookcase wrote:
c) What is indeed true is that at Trump's age it is reasonable to expect
some degree of mental deterioration. And so there will be no shortage of
experts around willing to confirm that fact, and point to what they claim
as evidence. Although quite how any of those self same experts would fare, >> when expected to produce a satisfactory answer on a topic of which they
themselves knew absolutely nothing, say automatic gearboxes, is maybe
another matter.
That may be so. And it can be said that Joe Biden also exhibited cognitive decline. Why
does America pick frail old men to be President?
But when you're in an important press conference about (as Trump would put it) the
possibility of World War Three if we aren't very careful, then maybe the answers need
to be better prepared and better rehearsed otherwise the world might lose faith in
Trump's leadership.
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime), >>>> depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
That's not correct. The Official Secrets Act provisions generally
only apply to "members of the security and intelligence services",
"Crown servants", and "government contractors". It can also apply
to people who have been "notified" that it applies to them, which
is what the "signing the Act" thing is about - it's an evidence
trail so you can't deny that you were notified. Not to mention it
probably works psychologically to make people take the secrecy
stuff seriously.
In that case what is there to prevent any member of the public from publishing or repeating Official Secrets and categorically
refusing to disclose their source ?
On 18/03/2025 10:36, Pancho wrote:
On 3/18/25 01:39, JNugent wrote:
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to
attack
journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges
against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
[to Pancho:]
That makes Assange a "journalist", does it?
Assange was involved in the publishing of news (newly received or
noteworthy information, especially about recent events.)
So he was a journalist.
I don't see what possible objection you could have to my use of the word?
Perhaps one objection to the use of that word is that Assange was too cowardly to surrender to bail and to argue in a court of law that he was
a journalist and entitled to whatever protection a journalist is
entitled to.
Instead, he manipulated his gullible followers who believed
that he was being persecuted for speaking the truth.
He persuaded government employees to leak official secrets to him (and/
or to Wikileaks) and then published those secrets indiscriminately, or
gave them to real newspapers.
He's a journalist in the sense that anyone who rummages through the
dustbins of a politician or other celebrity and then sells the contents
to the Sun, is also a journalist. Or anyone who has phone-hacked. Which
may be true these days. Journalists require very little analytical
skill, any ability to put together a meaningful story. Just find some clickbait to publish, maybe copying it from other sites. Woodward and Bernstein are no longer the benchmark.
On 18/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
On 18/03/2025 08:37 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
And Zelenskyy had made public before the meeting that any agreement
was conditional on a security guarantee. I suspect that Trump
glosed over that in the private meeting and Zelenskyy was reminding
him. I have had to do that on occasions after business meetings when >>>>> reporting back'
Ahem... do you have verifiable and verified evidence for whatever it
is that moves you to "suspect" that?
Life experience and watching the interview.
That is verifiable, is it?
How can anyone do that with your claims?
It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over
that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy
raised it to remind him."
I haven't, and don't, claim it as fact as I have made very clear.
Suspecting it is all I asked you about.
And you have confirmed that you have no reason for that.
I don't understand what point (if any) your are trying to make.
That is verifiable, is it?
How can anyone do that with your claims?
It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier >>>>post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over >>>>that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy >>>>raised it to remind him."
I haven't, and don't, claim it as fact as I have made very clear.
Suspecting it is all I asked you about.
And you have confirmed that you have no reason for that.
I don't understand what point (if any) your are trying to make.
A day or two back you asked me for verifiable evidence of something which
had been announced in the news.
I was now asking you for verifiable evidence for your own "suspecting" >something.
That is "suspecting" something rather than knowing something.
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime), >>>>> depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
That's not correct. The Official Secrets Act provisions generally
only apply to "members of the security and intelligence services",
"Crown servants", and "government contractors". It can also apply
to people who have been "notified" that it applies to them, which
is what the "signing the Act" thing is about - it's an evidence
trail so you can't deny that you were notified. Not to mention it
probably works psychologically to make people take the secrecy
stuff seriously.
In that case what is there to prevent any member of the public from
publishing or repeating Official Secrets and categorically
refusing to disclose their source ?
I don't know, *is* there anything to prevent that?
I imagine that the government could get a court order compelling the
person to reveal their source, and obviously they would then be in
contempt of court if they still refused to do so.
That may be so. And it can be said that Joe Biden also exhibited
cognitive decline. Why does America pick frail old men to be President?
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in
wartime), depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
That's not correct. The Official Secrets Act provisions generally
only apply to "members of the security and intelligence services",
"Crown servants", and "government contractors". It can also apply
to people who have been "notified" that it applies to them, which
is what the "signing the Act" thing is about - it's an evidence
trail so you can't deny that you were notified. Not to mention it
probably works psychologically to make people take the secrecy
stuff seriously.
In that case what is there to prevent any member of the public from
publishing or repeating Official Secrets and categorically
refusing to disclose their source ?
I don't know, *is* there anything to prevent that?
I imagine that the government could get a court order compelling the
person to reveal their source, and obviously they would then be in
contempt of court if they still refused to do so.
quote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant
or government contractor) has in their possession official information
in any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed
to them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or was entrusted
to them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to
disclose this information without lawful authority.
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in
wartime), depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
That's not correct. The Official Secrets Act provisions generally
only apply to "members of the security and intelligence services",
"Crown servants", and "government contractors". It can also apply
to people who have been "notified" that it applies to them, which
is what the "signing the Act" thing is about - it's an evidence
trail so you can't deny that you were notified. Not to mention it
probably works psychologically to make people take the secrecy
stuff seriously.
In that case what is there to prevent any member of the public from
publishing or repeating Official Secrets and categorically
refusing to disclose their source ?
I don't know, *is* there anything to prevent that?
I imagine that the government could get a court order compelling the
person to reveal their source, and obviously they would then be in
contempt of court if they still refused to do so.
quote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant
or government contractor) has in their possession official information
in any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed
to them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or � was entrusted
to them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to
disclose this information without lawful authority.
Yes, fair enough, s5 is relevant. I stopped reading the Act at just the
wrong point! You said "all the provisions" apply so I figured it was sufficient to check that most don't ;-)
On 3/18/25 11:02, The Todal wrote:
On 18/03/2025 10:36, Pancho wrote:
On 3/18/25 01:39, JNugent wrote:
I think both the
Russian and Western criminal justice systems are manipulated to
attack
journalists/political opponents. Corrupt regimes trump up charges >>>>>>> against people who expose their corruption.
I see.
[to Pancho:]
That makes Assange a "journalist", does it?
Assange was involved in the publishing of news (newly received or
noteworthy information, especially about recent events.)
So he was a journalist.
I don't see what possible objection you could have to my use of the
word?
Perhaps one objection to the use of that word is that Assange was too
cowardly to surrender to bail and to argue in a court of law that he
was a journalist and entitled to whatever protection a journalist is
entitled to.
You mean brave, like Navlny who returned to Russia to fight his case in
the courts, to claim the protection he was entitled to. Brave isn't the
first word that springs to my mind.
Apparently, the CIA have discussed assassinating Assange.
What do you consider brave?
Instead, he manipulated his gullible followers who believed that he
was being persecuted for speaking the truth.
Yes, he even "manipulated" non followers, independent third parties, to believe that, and to continue believing that to this day.
He persuaded government employees to leak official secrets to him
(and/ or to Wikileaks) and then published those secrets
indiscriminately, or gave them to real newspapers.
He's a journalist in the sense that anyone who rummages through the
dustbins of a politician or other celebrity and then sells the
contents to the Sun, is also a journalist. Or anyone who has phone-
hacked. Which may be true these days. Journalists require very little
analytical skill, any ability to put together a meaningful story. Just
find some clickbait to publish, maybe copying it from other sites.
Woodward and Bernstein are no longer the benchmark.
Curious, Assange set up WikiLeaks. Created a vehicle for exposure of disgusting authoritarian behaviour. Published in the face of US threats.
Woodwood got lucky once, due to his privileged background. After which,
his "analytic" skills deserted him. See his analysis on the likelihood
of finding WMD in Iraq, or perhaps "Jimmy's world".
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant or government contractor) has in their possession official information in
any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed to
them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or was entrusted to
them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to disclose
this information without lawful authority.
14 It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure ofinformation
relating to security or intelligence, defence or international relations
if this has been: communicated in confidence to another State or international organisation; and the information has come into the persons possession was entrusted to them by a Crown Servant in
confidence then it is an offence to disclose this information without
lawful authority.
It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure of information relating to security or intelligence, defence or international relations
if this has been:
communicated in confidence to another State or international
organisation; and the information has come into the persons
possession without the authority of that State or organisation.
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 2025-03-18, billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Historically it hasn't been a crime to find them out (except in wartime), >>>>> depending how you got them.
Er, I think you'll find that it always has been.
As is frequently pointed out, the fact that certain Government
employees are required to actually sign (Section 2 ?) of the
Official Secrets Ac, in no way implies that they or anyone
else was not already subject to all the provisions of the
Official Secrets Act. Signing simply acts as a reminder -
and can provide boasting points, in later life.
That's not correct. The Official Secrets Act provisions generally
only apply to "members of the security and intelligence services",
"Crown servants", and "government contractors". It can also apply
to people who have been "notified" that it applies to them, which
is what the "signing the Act" thing is about - it's an evidence
trail so you can't deny that you were notified. Not to mention it
probably works psychologically to make people take the secrecy
stuff seriously.
In that case what is there to prevent any member of the public from
publishing or repeating Official Secrets and categorically
refusing to disclose their source ?
I don't know, *is* there anything to prevent that?
I imagine that the government could get a court order compelling the
person to reveal their source, and obviously they would then be in
contempt of court if they still refused to do so.
On 18/03/2025 13:26, Pancho wrote:
Curious, Assange set up WikiLeaks. Created a vehicle for exposure of
disgusting authoritarian behaviour. Published in the face of US threats.
No, it was a vehicle for exposure of ALL secrets. He was and is a hacker
who gets pleasure from breaking into computers and publishing the entire contents of whatever the public can't see.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:18:04 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant or
government contractor) has in their possession official information in
any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed to
them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or � was entrusted to
them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to disclose
this information without lawful authority.
That is the overarching description of the offence, but in fact, there are many exceptions to it, the most important being s.5(3):
"(3)In the case of information or a document or article protected against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above [security, intelligence, defence and international relations], a person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above unless-
(a)the disclosure by him is damaging; and
(b)he makes it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it
would be damaging;"
In general, the 1989 Act does not protect "secrets" of any and every kind, but only secrets whose disclosure is clearly "damaging". That exemption
was introduced as a result of the Ponting case, and to remedy the
discredited provisions of the 1911 Act, which famously made it a criminal offence to disclose the colour of the wallpaper in the Department of
Housing canteen.
information
14 It is also an offence to make a �damaging� disclosure of
relating to security or intelligence, defence or international relations
if this has been: � communicated in confidence to another State or
international organisation; and � the information has come into the
person�s possession was entrusted to them by a Crown Servant in
confidence then it is an offence to disclose this information without
lawful authority.
It is also an offence to make a �damaging� disclosure of information
relating to security or intelligence, defence or international relations
if this has been:
� communicated in confidence to another State or international
organisation; and � the information has come into the person�s
possession without the authority of that State or organisation.
Again, exceptions apply.
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vrdv8t$eek5$[email protected]...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:18:04 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant or
government contractor) has in their possession official information in
any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed to
them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or was entrusted
to them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to
disclose this information without lawful authority.
That is the overarching description of the offence, but in fact, there
are many exceptions to it, the most important being s.5(3):
"(3)In the case of information or a document or article protected
against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above [security, intelligence,
defence and international relations], a person does not commit an
offence under subsection (2) above unless-
(a)the disclosure by him is damaging; and (b)he makes it knowing, or
having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;"
In general, the 1989 Act does not protect "secrets" of any and every
kind,
but only secrets whose disclosure is clearly "damaging". That exemption
was introduced as a result of the Ponting case, and to remedy the
discredited provisions of the 1911 Act, which famously made it a
criminal offence to disclose the colour of the wallpaper in the
Department of Housing canteen.
14 It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure ofinformation
relating to security or intelligence, defence or internationalAgain, exceptions apply.
relations if this has been: communicated in confidence to another
State or international organisation; and the information has come
into the persons possession was entrusted to them by a Crown Servant
in confidence then it is an offence to disclose this information
without lawful authority.
It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure of information
relating to security or intelligence, defence or international
relations if this has been:
communicated in confidence to another State or international
organisation; and the information has come into the persons
possession without the authority of that State or organisation.
The only point at issue was whether or not any of the "prohibitions"
(rather than "provisions" as previously stated) of the Official Secrets
Act applied to members of the public.
The answer being that they do. Although clearly not all of them as some
apply specifically to Govt Servants, Contractors etc.
Ponting is of interest, as his acquittal led in fact to a
"strengthening"
of the 1911 Act
Ponting argued that in supplying material to an MP he
was "acting in the public interest". Which was allowed under the 1911
Act
The Trial Judge however HH Sir Anthony McCowan, instructed the jury to convict, on the basis that the public interest was whatever the
Government of the day, said it was.
Which strictly speaking, was correct.
The jury acquitted nevertheless.
Because of the clearly contentious nature of the proposition that "the
public interest was whatever the Govermenent of the day said it was"
which in a democracy is possibly as good as any other, but clearly open
to debate (to the deteriment of Parliamentary Authority) the public
interest defence was removed in the 1989 Act.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:50:13 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vrdv8t$eek5$[email protected]...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:18:04 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant or >>>> government contractor) has in their possession official information in >>>> any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed to >>>> them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or was entrusted
to them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to
disclose this information without lawful authority.
That is the overarching description of the offence, but in fact, there
are many exceptions to it, the most important being s.5(3):
"(3)In the case of information or a document or article protected
against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above [security, intelligence,
defence and international relations], a person does not commit an
offence under subsection (2) above unless-
(a)the disclosure by him is damaging; and (b)he makes it knowing, or
having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;"
In general, the 1989 Act does not protect "secrets" of any and every
kind,
but only secrets whose disclosure is clearly "damaging". That exemption
was introduced as a result of the Ponting case, and to remedy the
discredited provisions of the 1911 Act, which famously made it a
criminal offence to disclose the colour of the wallpaper in the
Department of Housing canteen.
14 It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure ofinformation
relating to security or intelligence, defence or internationalAgain, exceptions apply.
relations if this has been: communicated in confidence to another
State or international organisation; and the information has come
into the persons possession was entrusted to them by a Crown Servant >>>> in confidence then it is an offence to disclose this information
without lawful authority.
It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure of information >>>> relating to security or intelligence, defence or international
relations if this has been:
communicated in confidence to another State or international
organisation; and the information has come into the persons
possession without the authority of that State or organisation.
The only point at issue was whether or not any of the "prohibitions"
(rather than "provisions" as previously stated) of the Official Secrets
Act applied to members of the public.
No, the point at issue was whether Assange committed a crime by publishing official secrets.
or publishing secret information is definitely an offence [under OSA
1989]". Other people then raised the issue of whether the Act applied to
the general public, and journalists in particular.
I quoted the above extract from the Act to show that it does *not* create
an offence of publishing official secrets. The offence is only made out
(in general) if the information is *protected*, and to meet that criterion
it has to be *damaging* (and also meet some other criteria too.)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:50:13 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vrdv8t$eek5$[email protected]...
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:18:04 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant or >>>> government contractor) has in their possession official information in >>>> any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed to >>>> them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or � was entrusted
to them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to
disclose this information without lawful authority.
That is the overarching description of the offence, but in fact, there
are many exceptions to it, the most important being s.5(3):
"(3)In the case of information or a document or article protected
against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above [security, intelligence,
defence and international relations], a person does not commit an
offence under subsection (2) above unless-
(a)the disclosure by him is damaging; and (b)he makes it knowing, or
having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;"
In general, the 1989 Act does not protect "secrets" of any and every
kind,
but only secrets whose disclosure is clearly "damaging". That exemption
was introduced as a result of the Ponting case, and to remedy the
discredited provisions of the 1911 Act, which famously made it a
criminal offence to disclose the colour of the wallpaper in the
Department of Housing canteen.
14 It is also an offence to make a �damaging� disclosure ofinformation
relating to security or intelligence, defence or internationalAgain, exceptions apply.
relations if this has been: � communicated in confidence to another
State or international organisation; and � the information has come
into the person�s possession was entrusted to them by a Crown Servant
in confidence then it is an offence to disclose this information
without lawful authority.
It is also an offence to make a �damaging� disclosure of information
relating to security or intelligence, defence or international
relations if this has been:
� communicated in confidence to another State or international
organisation; and � the information has come into the person�s
possession without the authority of that State or organisation.
The only point at issue was whether or not any of the "prohibitions"
(rather than "provisions" as previously stated) of the Official Secrets
Act applied to members of the public.
No, the point at issue was whether Assange committed a crime by publishing official secrets.
JNugent claimed that he was, because "Knowingly selling
or publishing secret information is definitely an offence [under OSA
1989]". Other people then raised the issue of whether the Act applied to
the general public, and journalists in particular.
I quoted the above extract from the Act to show that it does *not* create
an offence of publishing official secrets. The offence is only made out
(in general) if the information is *protected*, and to meet that criterion
it has to be *damaging* (and also meet some other criteria too.)
The answer being that they do. Although clearly not all of them as some
apply specifically to Govt Servants, Contractors etc.
In other words, the answer is that they don't in general apply to members
of the public.
Ponting is of interest, as his acquittal led in fact to a
"strengthening"
of the 1911 Act
It led to it being weakened in the way I described above. Yes, it removed
the "public interest" defence, but it made it far less necessary by
stating explicitly that non-damaging disclosures by members of the public
are not against the law.
JNugent wrote:
That is verifiable, is it?
How can anyone do that with your claims?
It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier >>>>> post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed
over that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and
rZelenskyy aised it to remind him."
I haven't, and don't, claim it as fact as I have made very clear.
Suspecting it is all I asked you about.
And you have confirmed that you have no reason for that.
I don't understand what point (if any) your are trying to make.
A day or two back you asked me for verifiable evidence of something
which had been announced in the news.
I was now asking you for verifiable evidence for your own "suspecting"
something.
That is "suspecting" something rather than knowing something.
I said "Is there any verifiable evidence of that?" in response to your
"with a participant trying to extract on televison more than had been
agreed before the public communique."
It's a general question, you seemed to be putting something forward as a
fact i.e. something had been agreed before the public communique. As
such I wondered if it was verifiable. There was no real need for you to scratch around trying to come up with something, I just wondered where
it came from.
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could
that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a verifiable
fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
On 19/03/2025 16:06, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 09:50:13 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:18:04 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
2.3 Members of the public and the Official Secrets Act 1989
Members of the public are bound by the Official Secrets Act;
it is not necessary for them to have signed it. Under Section 5,
if a member of the public (or any person who is not a Crown Servant or >>>>> government contractor) has in their possession official information in >>>>> any of the six categories, and this information has: been disclosed to >>>>> them by a Crown Servant without lawful authority; or was entrusted >>>>> to them by a Crown Servant in confidence then it is an offence to
disclose this information without lawful authority.
That is the overarching description of the offence, but in fact, there >>>> are many exceptions to it, the most important being s.5(3):
"(3)In the case of information or a document or article protected
against disclosure by sections 1 to 3 above [security, intelligence,
defence and international relations], a person does not commit an
offence under subsection (2) above unless-
(a)the disclosure by him is damaging; and (b)he makes it knowing, or
having reasonable cause to believe, that it would be damaging;"
In general, the 1989 Act does not protect "secrets" of any and every
kind, but only secrets whose disclosure is clearly "damaging". That
exemption was introduced as a result of the Ponting case, and to
remedy the discredited provisions of the 1911 Act, which famously
made it a criminal offence to disclose the colour of the wallpaper
in the Department of Housing canteen.
14 It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure of
information relating to security or intelligence, defence or
international relations if this has been: communicated in confidence >>>>> to another State or international organisation; and the information >>>>> has come into the persons possession was entrusted to them by a Crown >>>>> Servant in confidence then it is an offence to disclose this
information without lawful authority.
It is also an offence to make a damaging disclosure of information >>>>> relating to security or intelligence, defence or international
relations if this has been:
communicated in confidence to another State or international
organisation; and the information has come into the persons
possession without the authority of that State or organisation.
Again, exceptions apply.
The only point at issue was whether or not any of the "prohibitions"
(rather than "provisions" as previously stated) of the Official Secrets
Act applied to members of the public.
No, the point at issue was whether Assange committed a crime by
publishing official secrets.
Let's not forget that Assange was not charged with a crime under English
law. He faced charges in the USA and the Americans applied for
extradition and our judges granted that application.
quote
He has been indicted in the USA on 18 counts connected with obtaining
and disclosing defence and national security material through the
website, primarily in 2009 and 2010 but also to some extent since. Those charges relate to alleged actions on the part of Mr Assange which have
been summarised by the USA as follows:
"His complicity in illegal acts to obtain or receive voluminous databases of classified information;
His agreement and attempt to obtain classified information through computer hacking; and
His publishing certain classified documents that contained the unredacted names of innocent people who risked their safety and freedom
to provide information to the United States and its allies, including
local Afghans and Iraqis, journalists, religious leaders, human rights advocates, and political dissidents from repressive regimes."
unquote
and from a different case transcript:
quote
The conduct can sensibly be divided into separate strands. The first
strand alleges a broad conspiracy with Ms. Manning and other unnamed
persons to commit computer intrusion (count 2). The second strand
alleges that Mr. Assange aided and abetted Ms. Manning in her unlawfully obtaining and disclosing materials to Mr. Assange, that he received
documents from Ms. Manning after he had assisted her to obtain them unlawfully (counts 6- 8 and 18), that he assisted Ms. Manning to obtain
and disclose these documents to himself (counts 9 - 14), and conspired
with Ms. Manning to gain unauthorised access to a government computer
under a user name that did not belong to her (counts 5). The third
strand relates to the publishing of documents which contained the names
of informants (counts 15 - 17). Count 1 is a broad conspiracy charge
relating to all of the above activity which does not require separate consideration. As it is alleged that the conduct within each strand is closely interconnected and concerns the same criminal enterprise, it is
not necessary to demonstrate a separate extradition offence for each of
the counts (see Tapin v USA [2012] EWCA 22 (Admin)).
unquote
JNugent claimed that he was, because "Knowingly selling
or publishing secret information is definitely an offence [under OSA
1989]". Other people then raised the issue of whether the Act applied to
the general public, and journalists in particular.
I quoted the above extract from the Act to show that it does *not* create
an offence of publishing official secrets. The offence is only made out
(in general) if the information is *protected*, and to meet that
criterion it has to be *damaging* (and also meet some other criteria too.)
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could
that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a verifiable >>fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Sarah Tisdall is still remembered.
The Guardian's editor handed over documents revealing the newspaper's source.
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic)
If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
JNugent wrote:
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could
that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a verifiable
fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Indeed, set out in my post: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:37:01 GMT
For many years, graffiti
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic)
If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
On 20/03/2025 08:24 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could
that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a verifiable >>>> fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Indeed, set out in my post: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:37:01 GMT
Hmmm...
You said on that occasion:
QUOTE:
Life experience and watching the interview. It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over
that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy
raised it to remind him."
ENDQUOTE
As I said, you had no reason for the suspicion.
If you had had such reason, you would have explained it. But you haven't.
"Life experience" is hardly relevant unless you are a close confidant of
one of the parties involved.
On 20/03/2025 10:45 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
For many years, graffiti
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic)
If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
"Taking care to cover their tracks" would simply mean that a number of innocent
colleagues would / could have fallen under suspicion. That is what covering one's
tracks would mean in the case of deliberately leaked information.
Would that be a moral approach?
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 20/03/2025 10:45 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
For many years, graffiti
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic)
If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
"Taking care to cover their tracks" would simply mean that a number of innocent
colleagues would / could have fallen under suspicion. That is what covering one's
tracks would mean in the case of deliberately leaked information.
Would that be a moral approach?
You're actually responding to Todal's comment, but from Sarah Tisdall's
point of view....
Yes ! It was a moral approach. Most definitely !
Sarah Tisdall believed that she was acting out of conscience. And so it
was perfectly reasonable for her to believe that any "innocent" colleagues who fell under suspicion should have thought similarly.
Even if not having
the "courage" to act as she did. As she could never be absolutely certain
she would never be found out - as indeed was the case. Whereas her
colleagues could never be convicted.
Whereas laying a false trail deliberately leading to a particularly "deserving"
colleague, opens up all sorts of further moral dilemmas, of course, .
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could >>>>> that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a verifiable >>>>> fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Indeed, set out in my post: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:37:01 GMT
Hmmm...
You said on that occasion:
QUOTE:
Life experience and watching the interview. It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over
that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy
raised it to remind him."
ENDQUOTE
As I said, you had no reason for the suspicion.
Personally, I rarely need an objective reason to be suspicious. YMMV
If you had had such reason, you would have explained it. But you haven't.
"Life experience" is hardly relevant unless you are a close confidant of
one of the parties involved.
On 20/03/2025 08:24 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could >>>>that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a verifiable >>>>fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Indeed, set out in my post: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:37:01 GMT
Hmmm...
You said on that occasion:
QUOTE:
Life experience and watching the interview. It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier post
I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed over that in >the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to >remind him."
ENDQUOTE
As I said, you had no reason for the suspicion.
If you had had such reason, you would have explained it. But you haven't.
"Life experience" is hardly relevant unless you are a close confidant of
one of the parties involved.
On 20/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:24 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could >>>>> that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a
verifiable
fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Indeed, set out in my post: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:37:01 GMT
Hmmm...
You said on that occasion:
QUOTE:
Life experience and watching the interview. It is incapable of being
verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed
over that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and
Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
ENDQUOTE
As I said, you had no reason for the suspicion.
If you had had such reason, you would have explained it. But you haven't.
"Life experience" is hardly relevant unless you are a close confidant
of one of the parties involved.
I disagree and I have explained it.
Life experience controls what we do/think and led me to think that Trump glossed over the request for a security guarantee in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
I really can't understand your point at all I'm afraid.
On 20/03/2025 02:01 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 20/03/2025 in message <[email protected]> JNugent wrote:
On 20/03/2025 08:24 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
In respect of my "suspecting" something I made it as clear as I could >>>>>>that I was speculating, expressing an opinion, not stating a >>>>>>verifiable
fact. It seems that wasn't clear to you?
But what was the reason for your suspicion?
There has to have been one.
Indeed, set out in my post: Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:37:01 GMT
Hmmm...
You said on that occasion:
QUOTE:
Life experience and watching the interview. It is incapable of being >>>verified (unless you were in the meeting) which is why in an earlier
post I said "My suspicion (only speculation) is that Trump glossed
over that in the private talks (without flatly refusing it) and
Zelenskyy raised it to remind him."
ENDQUOTE
As I said, you had no reason for the suspicion.
If you had had such reason, you would have explained it. But you haven't. >>>
"Life experience" is hardly relevant unless you are a close confidant
of one of the parties involved.
I disagree and I have explained it.
Life experience controls what we do/think and led me to think that Trump >>glossed over the request for a security guarantee in the private talks >>(without flatly refusing it) and Zelenskyy raised it to remind him.
You have no "life experience" of either of those two gentlemen.
Well, not unless you are leading a secret life away from usenet.
I really can't understand your point at all I'm afraid.
On 20/03/2025 01:11 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 20/03/2025 10:45 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
For many years, graffiti
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic)
If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
"Taking care to cover their tracks" would simply mean that a number of innocent
colleagues would / could have fallen under suspicion. That is what covering one's
tracks would mean in the case of deliberately leaked information.
Would that be a moral approach?
You're actually responding to Todal's comment, but from Sarah Tisdall's
point of view....
Sorry. Will try to do better.
Yes ! It was a moral approach. Most definitely !
Sarah Tisdall believed that she was acting out of conscience. And so it
was perfectly reasonable for her to believe that any "innocent" colleagues >> who fell under suspicion should have thought similarly.
How does, or would, that justify her contriving to make it look as though one of them
was guilty of a serious criminal offence?
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
Ah right. "Secret" as in "unless the Russians knew the precise date of
their arrival, they might launch a pre-emptive strike too early, and
vaporise the whole of Berkshire, and its million inhabitants, by mistake ?
That sort of secret ?
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
For many years, graffiti
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic) >>>>>> If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
"Taking care to cover their tracks" would simply mean that a number of innocent
colleagues would / could have fallen under suspicion. That is what covering one's
tracks would mean in the case of deliberately leaked information.
Would that be a moral approach?
You're actually responding to Todal's comment, but from Sarah Tisdall's
point of view....
Sorry. Will try to do better.
Yes ! It was a moral approach. Most definitely !
Sarah Tisdall believed that she was acting out of conscience. And so it
was perfectly reasonable for her to believe that any "innocent" colleagues >>> who fell under suspicion should have thought similarly.
How does, or would, that justify her contriving to make it look as though one of them
was guilty of a serious criminal offence?
Except that it wouldn't have, would it ?
Sarah Tisdell was a Clerical Officer which AIUI anyway is a fairly
lowly position in the Civil Service hierarchy.
So that if a lowly person such as Sarah Tisdell could obtain such
information then its fairly obvious, given it wasn't even restricted
that almost anyone working in the MOD right up to the Permanent
Secretary could have obtained that information; and leaked it to
the Guardian.
Except potential sources won't have been limited to the MOD
But to then Westminster village as a whole
The information concerned Michael Heseltine making an announcement
about cruise missiles.
Michael Heseltine had enough enemies among his own Conservative colleagues that any one of them might have welcomed the chance to embarrass him
by pre-empting his announcement. By leaking the details to "The Guardian"
; the only paper which would be sure to public.
Similarly the siting of US cruise missile. It's important not to underestimate the degree of visceral Anti-Americanism which exists
in sections of the British Establishment; not excluding the MOD.
Some or all of which, Sarah Tisdell was quite possibly well aware of
So had it not been Sarah Tisdell or one of possibly hundreds of others,
a prime candidate would probably have been Alan Clark.
And not only the British Establishment. One of the biggest black
marks against former Communist Party Member Denis Healey, (1937-40)
was his cosy relationship with his American counterparts while
Defence Secretary; with many of whom he boasted of being of first
name terms. Not exactly a vote winner down the Miners Welfare you'd
have thought
On 19/03/2025 16:06, Handsome Jack wrote:
JNugent claimed that he was, because "Knowingly selling or publishing
secret information is definitely an offence [under OSA 1989]". Other
people then raised the issue of whether the Act applied to the general
public, and journalists in particular.
I quoted the above extract from the Act to show that it does *not*
create an offence of publishing official secrets. The offence is only
made out (in general) if the information is *protected*, and to meet
that criterion it has to be *damaging* (and also meet some other
criteria too.)
JNugent made no such assertions about any particular case,
but are you
[HJ] sure that that offence (or the American equivalant of it) was not
made out, albeit under a legal provision in that third party country?
On 20/03/2025 04:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
Ah right. "Secret" as in "unless the Russians knew the precise date of
their arrival, they might launch a pre-emptive strike too early, and
vaporise the whole of Berkshire, and its million inhabitants, by mistake ? >>
That sort of secret ?
A secret she was not authorised to pass to anyone outside the copy list.
There is no need to add to that.
It was never up to her (or to you) to second guess the reasons for secrecy.
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 04:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
Ah right. "Secret" as in "unless the Russians knew the precise date of
their arrival, they might launch a pre-emptive strike too early, and
vaporise the whole of Berkshire, and its million inhabitants, by mistake ? >>>
That sort of secret ?
A secret she was not authorised to pass to anyone outside the copy list.
There is no need to add to that.
It was never up to her (or to you) to second guess the reasons for secrecy. >>
The report I have seen says that the documents were harmless in the opinion of a judge.
They were about how a minister would present the information to
parliament.
Be careful with use of the terms ‘Secret’ and ‘Confidential’, they had
specific meanings in the context of classified information at the time. Unless you know that the documents were classified and at what level you should not assume that they must be handled in any particular way.
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other countries.
Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an
offence in the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence under
the OSA. If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian government information would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 04:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival
and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
Ah right. "Secret" as in "unless the Russians knew the precise date of
their arrival, they might launch a pre-emptive strike too early, and
vaporise the whole of Berkshire, and its million inhabitants, by mistake ? >>>
That sort of secret ?
A secret she was not authorised to pass to anyone outside the copy list.
There is no need to add to that.
It was never up to her (or to you) to second guess the reasons for secrecy. >>
The report I have seen says that the documents were harmless in the opinion of a judge. They were about how a minister would present the information to parliament.
Be careful with use of the terms 'Secret' and 'Confidential', they had specific meanings in the context of classified information at the time.
Unless you know that the documents were classified and at what level you should not assume that they must be handled in any particular way.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:40:45 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 19/03/2025 16:06, Handsome Jack wrote:
JNugent claimed that he was, because "Knowingly selling or publishing
secret information is definitely an offence [under OSA 1989]". Other
people then raised the issue of whether the Act applied to the general >>>> public, and journalists in particular.
I quoted the above extract from the Act to show that it does *not*
create an offence of publishing official secrets. The offence is only
made out (in general) if the information is *protected*, and to meet
that criterion it has to be *damaging* (and also meet some other
criteria too.)
JNugent made no such assertions about any particular case,
Well, you were posting to a sub-thread about Assange, and you mentioned Assange by name (and no-one else) at least four times in that sub-thread.
So I thought that's why you made the remark about offences under OSA 1989. Anyway ...
but are you
[HJ] sure that that offence (or the American equivalant of it) was not
made out, albeit under a legal provision in that third party country?
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other countries. Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an
offence in the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence under
the OSA. If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian government information would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
"Owen Rees" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vrja9g$17pjm$[email protected]...
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 04:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival
and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
Ah right. "Secret" as in "unless the Russians knew the precise date of >>>> their arrival, they might launch a pre-emptive strike too early, and
vaporise the whole of Berkshire, and its million inhabitants, by mistake ? >>>>
That sort of secret ?
A secret she was not authorised to pass to anyone outside the copy list. >>>
There is no need to add to that.
It was never up to her (or to you) to second guess the reasons for secrecy. >>>
The report I have seen says that the documents were harmless in the opinion >> of a judge. They were about how a minister would present the information to >> parliament.
Be careful with use of the terms 'Secret' and 'Confidential', they had
specific meanings in the context of classified information at the time.
Unless you know that the documents were classified and at what level you
should not assume that they must be handled in any particular way.
I think the point *now* being made, is that you can't hope to run an efficient
operation, even if it's only a Regional Office of the Ministry of Silly Walks,
if the Clerical Officers don't pay due attention to the copy list.
Which in this case, possibly cost the Department an extra ten sheets of paper;
to say nothing of toner !
bb
On 20/03/2025 04:20 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
For many years, graffiti
near the Guardian's offices reminded passers-by of this betrayal of a well
meaning
government employee. "Guardian Readers Have You No Consience?" (sic) >>>>>>> If there was a lesson to be learned it was that anyone leaking government secrets
should take better care to cover their tracks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Tisdall
"Taking care to cover their tracks" would simply mean that a number of innocent
colleagues would / could have fallen under suspicion. That is what covering one's
tracks would mean in the case of deliberately leaked information.
Would that be a moral approach?
You're actually responding to Todal's comment, but from Sarah Tisdall's >>>> point of view....
Sorry. Will try to do better.
Yes ! It was a moral approach. Most definitely !
Sarah Tisdall believed that she was acting out of conscience. And so it >>>> was perfectly reasonable for her to believe that any "innocent" colleagues >>>> who fell under suspicion should have thought similarly.
So what?
As I asked before:
How does, or would, that justify her contriving to make it look as though one of them
was guilty of a serious criminal offence?
Except that it wouldn't have, would it ?
Of COURSE it would.
1) It was known that confidential information had been leaked (ie stolen) and passed to
an organisation which had no right to it and was known to be preoared to publish it.
2) Only a limited number of officers would have been in a position to steal that
information.
3) One of them did it.
4) The one who did it could only escape punishment (some principles, eh?) by diverting
suspicion away from herself and inescapably, towards other people.
5) Those other people were innocent.
Sarah Tisdell was a Clerical Officer which AIUI anyway is a fairly
lowly position in the Civil Service hierarchy.
That is irrelevant. Junior officers handle a lot of confidential information and are
trusted to do so. Of course, some of them (not an awful lot, it seems) are not
trustworthy and eventually prove that.
Bingo!
So that if a lowly person such as Sarah Tisdell could obtain such
information then its fairly obvious, given it wasn't even restricted
that almost anyone working in the MOD right up to the Permanent
Secretary could have obtained that information; and leaked it to
the Guardian.
And she was trying to divert the blame onto one of them.
Thank you for getting there at last.
Except potential sources won't have been limited to the MOD
But to then Westminster village as a whole
That is not true.
DWP people cannot waltz into the MoD.
DEFRA people cannot waltz into the DWP, etc, etc.
The information concerned Michael Heseltine making an announcement
about cruise missiles.
Michael Heseltine had enough enemies among his own Conservative colleagues >> that any one of them might have welcomed the chance to embarrass him
by pre-empting his announcement. By leaking the details to "The Guardian"
; the only paper which would be sure to public.
Similarly the siting of US cruise missile. It's important not to
underestimate the degree of visceral Anti-Americanism which exists
in sections of the British Establishment; not excluding the MOD.
Some or all of which, Sarah Tisdell was quite possibly well aware of
So had it not been Sarah Tisdell or one of possibly hundreds of others,
a prime candidate would probably have been Alan Clark.
But it was Sarah Tisdell and not any of the other people that you are, or she was,
trying to blame.
billy bookcase <[email protected]> wrote:
"Owen Rees" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vrja9g$17pjm$[email protected]...
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
On 20/03/2025 04:48 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Remember: she and the Guardian conspired to publish secret details of the arrival
and
deployment of NATO's nuclear defences. That is no small matter.
Ah right. "Secret" as in "unless the Russians knew the precise date of >>>>> their arrival, they might launch a pre-emptive strike too early, and >>>>> vaporise the whole of Berkshire, and its million inhabitants, by mistake ?
That sort of secret ?
A secret she was not authorised to pass to anyone outside the copy list. >>>>
There is no need to add to that.
It was never up to her (or to you) to second guess the reasons for secrecy.
The report I have seen says that the documents were harmless in the opinion >>> of a judge. They were about how a minister would present the information to >>> parliament.
Be careful with use of the terms 'Secret' and 'Confidential', they had
specific meanings in the context of classified information at the time.
Unless you know that the documents were classified and at what level you >>> should not assume that they must be handled in any particular way.
I think the point *now* being made, is that you can't hope to run an efficient
operation, even if it's only a Regional Office of the Ministry of Silly Walks,
if the Clerical Officers don't pay due attention to the copy list.
Which in this case, possibly cost the Department an extra ten sheets of paper;
to say nothing of toner !
bb
If all you are considering is the usual duty that any employee has with respect to information they learn in the course of their employment then
why introduce the Official Secrets Act?
I have a long standing opinion that the Official Secrets Act is sometimes abused to cover up political embarrassment, incompetence and even
corruption.
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:vrj7c4$14a1i$[email protected]...
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other
countries.
Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an offence in
the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence under the OSA.
If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian government information
would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
I can only suggest you familiarise yourself with The United Kingdom -
United States of America Agreement (UKUSA); and its ramifications
insofar as *any* intelligence regarding the defence and national
security of any of its partners, is concerned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:33:17 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:vrj7c4$14a1i$[email protected]...
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other
countries.
Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an offence in
the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence under the OSA.
If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian government information
would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
I can only suggest you familiarise yourself with The United Kingdom -
United States of America Agreement (UKUSA); and its ramifications
insofar as *any* intelligence regarding the defence and national
security of any of its partners, is concerned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
Which section of this agreement would make Assange's Wikileaks disclosures into an offence under OSA; and what offence under which section?
On 21/03/2025 08:18 AM, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:40:45 +0000, JNugent wrote:
but are you [HJ] sure that that offence (or the American equivalant of
it) was not made out, albeit under a legal provision in that third
party country?
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other
countries. Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an
offence in the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence
under the OSA. If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian
government information would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
AIUI, one of the tests underlying consideration of extradition (in
Assange's case, initially to Sweden for rape and later to the USA for computer hacking / espionage and disclosure of classified material) is
that the alleged offence is or would be an offence in the UK if it were committed here.
There is no doubt about that in the case of rape. And no doubt that had
the alleged offences against the USA been committed against the UK,
that
too would have been an offence (whether under the OSA
or other
legislation including that dealing with computer misuse).
But they weren't. And the OSA is concerned only with disclosures that are damaging to the UK (and in fact it is even more restricted than that,
where members of the general public do the disclosing).
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 09:33:17 -0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <[email protected]> wrote:
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other
countries.
Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an offence in
the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence under the OSA.
If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian government information
would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
I can only suggest you familiarise yourself with The United Kingdom -
United States of America Agreement (UKUSA); and its ramifications
insofar as *any* intelligence regarding the defence and national
security of any of its partners, is concerned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
Which section of this agreement would make Assange's Wikileaks disclosures into an offence under OSA; and what offence under which section?
On Fri, 21 Mar 2025 11:01:15 +0000, JNugent wrote:
On 21/03/2025 08:18 AM, Handsome Jack wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 02:40:45 +0000, JNugent wrote:
but are you [HJ] sure that that offence (or the American equivalant of >>>> it) was not made out, albeit under a legal provision in that third
party country?
No, it might well have been. However OSA 1989 is specifically concerned
with information relating to UK national security, not that of other
countries. Disclosing secret US government information is no doubt an
offence in the USA in some circumstances, but it is not an offence
under the OSA. If it were, then disclosing (say) secret Russian
government information would also be an offence, which would be absurd.
AIUI, one of the tests underlying consideration of extradition (in
Assange's case, initially to Sweden for rape and later to the USA for
computer hacking / espionage and disclosure of classified material) is
that the alleged offence is or would be an offence in the UK if it were
committed here.
There is no doubt about that in the case of rape. And no doubt that had
the alleged offences against the USA been committed against the UK,
But they weren't..
And the OSA is concerned only with disclosures that are
damaging to the UK (and in fact it is even more restricted than that,
where members of the general public do the disclosing).
that too would have been an offence (whether under the OSA
or other legislation including that dealing with computer misuse).
Which of Assange's actions would have been criminal under what other UK legislation, do you think?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 35:47:52 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,355 |