pap

The evidence on this thread would suggest otherwise, trousers. There has been no discussion of the issue at hand from the right; just political point scoring.

Oh aye, but take it to Ramirez Off Topic, mate. No need to pollute any more threads with this.

Please expand, Essruu. We all enjoy your pearls of wisdom.

Six million PS4's now sold. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-03-04-playstation-4-sales-hit-6m-after-japan-launch That is some going.

If you'd had any genuine conviction on the specifics of Harman, why isn't there a thread about it or taking you at your own suggestion, a series of posts on the Savile thread? There is nothing; not a word about Harman until this very thread. The first time you've been arsed about her views is in some bizarre "two wrongs make a right" calculation you seem to be performing.

Nah, not bullied. Courted and planned for, maybe. This is interesting; Victoria Nuland discussing the regime change the US is looking to achieve. This is the leaked call in which she says "f**k the EU". Lots of players in this game.

Once again, you're making the mistake that I am particularly arsed about shouting for the Labour Party. You've posted a picture of Tony Blair standing next to Jimmy Savile with a link (inexplicably) to the NCCL story about Harman. The one time that Blair is mentioned in that article is when they explain that he was Prime Minister during Hewitt's time as health secretary. Frame it as a legitmate response if you want; I prefer to see it as intellectually dishonest sleight-of-hand, unravelling the minute that someone does what I did. e.g. click on the link.

Again. Whatabouttery. It beggars belief, trousers. Do you really want to be seen as someone who turns a blind eye to child abuse because you like the colour of the tie?

Let's not dress McAlpine's case up as if he was cleared in court. Steven Messham first identified him, then claimed it was a case of mistaken identity; pretty much the only outcome that would guaranteed a lack of further scrutiny. Furthermore, this isn't even the first time these allegations have been made. McAlpine was named years ago, and didn't sue. http://scallywagmagazine.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/scallywag-magazine-article-on-lord.html I do agree that one needs to be careful; both the authors of this piece are now dead, well before their time.

Thatcher:- 1) Tried to get Savile knighted five times, was refused four times. 2) Had Peter Morrison as a PPS 3) Lord McAlpine as chairman of the Conservative party. 4) Patrick Rock, arrested last night, described as her protege. The first one should worry you enough, but the impression I get is that Thatcher knew about this; just didn't care.

Whatabouttery, chaps? Really? I find it a bit disturbing that you'd dismiss these charges (and their implications) because:- a) He's a Tory b) I personally didn't start a thread about Harriet Harman when the NCCL/PIE links were revealed. If you feel strongly enough about Harriet Harman, start your own thread and discuss the implications there. Don't wreck this one because you don't like the story.

Potentially interesting news for those of us that suspect that light entertainers might be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to paedophilia in the establishment. Patrick Rock, one of Cameron's aides, has been arrested for possession of child pornography. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572495/No-10-aide-arrested-child-porn-Police-quiz-man-advised-Cameron-web-filters.html http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/03/special-advisor-pm-arrested Rock, unmarried and 62 years old, has variously been described as a pillar of the Tory community and Thatcher's protege. He was involved in the new child pornography legislation, although government sources are already denying he took a lead role. Tipped for peerage just weeks ago, he resigned from his post after the allegations were made against him. Downing Street has apparently opened up access to its computers to assist with the investigation, and of course, Rock is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Logic would suggest that the coppers have hard evidence; you'd hope they wouldn't pull one of Cameron's aides based on anything flimsy. Moreover, the Conservatives have distanced themselves from this guy, and are being seen to be fully co-operating with the police investigation. Any thoughts on this? Got to say, tonight is the first time I've heard of Patrick Rock.

It's a yes or no question, prompted by your "nothing off the table" comment. The answer is "no", by the way.

Fair enough; this is better stuff. So "nothing off the table" presumably means war in the Ukraine, presumably prosecuted by a Western coalition against the Russian forces? I'm not sure that it's going to be as easy to find a "coalition of the willing" when the stakes are slightly higher than going against a third-rate power in the Middle East. Every country will have to ask itself whether Ukraine is worth the potential consequences of a general war with one of the world's few remaining superpowers. What do you think? Is Ukraine worth a war with Russia?

I have challenged you to put a little substance behind some of the broad statements you are making. I specifically asked what "bring them to heal" and "take a chance and roll the dice" meant. Your response is that I'm pro-Europe, into book burning, gay bashing and loving invasions? All I can truthfully say is that all of that has come from your own head. Worry.

So you can't expand on any of your points? Fair enough. Won't bother dignifying any of your "questions". Poor show here, I feel.

I rather like papski. I think I shall adopt it. Verbalberg for your good self?

As I said earlier, "Ha! Thoughts". I don't feel bad for repetition either; this post clearly vindicates me. You source nothing; everything is opinion. Like your opener. "They are feared not respected". I hope diplomats don't conduct their activities with this mantra in mind. Does Merkel run from bipartisan Russian-German talks, screaming about that nasty Ivan? You talk about a united Europe for the purposes of your argument here, yet say it can't happen on the EU threads. With respect to good guy USA and bad guys Russia, you seem to be operating under the illusion that we're living in the late 1980s (not just on this issue, Mavis). Can you expand on these please? "bring them to heal"? "take a chance and roll the dice"? About 70% of your post is unsubstantiated waffle, mate. Quite an achievement given it was a single sentence.

The Russians don't have to be liked, but they've got to be respected. That's part and parcel of the way superpowers work, and a big reason why superpowers keep schtum over certain issues. If freedom of the people is such an important feature of a society, why aren't countries like the US imposing sanctions on China for its continuing occupation of Tibet? Why isn't there a prominent member of the US Administration seeking human rights in Saudi Arabia, or any other of the dictatorships that the US cosies up to the in the Arab world? We turn a blind eye when we want to, and get involved when we want to. It's all opportunistic; there are huge commercial gains to be made from Ukraine. The EU was seeking to consolidate through accession what Hitler couldn't hold down in war; access to the vast resources of that country. They f**ked up and should have offered Ukraine a better deal.

Excellent post, Chicken With a Banjo. I too think the West has been pushing its luck for far too long with respect to the former Eastern bloc. Former Eastern Bloc EU

Pah. Textures. I acknowledge the difference, but if you'd wanted to stick the knife into the PS4, you should really have gone with the Killzone multiplayer debacle. Turns out that despite Sony saying Killzone multiplayer is 1080p @ 60FPS, it actually isn't. It's 1080p on the vertical, but the PS4 is only rendering half of the screen at once, giving an effective resolution of 960x1080. Bad bad Sony Y'see Nolan, if it's sh!t, it's sh!t. Needs to be reported, not papered over.

Russia is not just a big country. It's a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a nuclear power and a huge provider of energy. Of all the super-powers, it's the one that could most easily say "f**k you" to the rest of the world and not be bothered about it.

More to the point, who the f**k thought it would be a good idea to throw our lot in with the French?

I think you're mixing a few things up there. "Peace in our time" was uttered after Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938, having negotiated away the Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia) to the Germans. The Anglo-Polish military alliance was concluded around six months later.

The guarantee was observed, in the sense that we declared war over the issue. The key dispute between Germany and Poland was the future of Danzig and the Polish corridor. Chamberlain should never have given the guarantee; there was no practical means to enforce it - neither the French nor the English had any means of defending Poland in a land war, as circumstances showed very shortly afterward. The right thing to do would have been to leave Poland to organise her own protection, same as it is here.