Verbal

A case in point: now a Republican presidential hopeful is calling for Assange to be executed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

I'm not being defensive especially - more offended by what I see as the lack of principle and consistency in your earlier post. And once again, you say he's 'innocent' but that there's 'no smoke without fire'. So he's both innocent AND guilty! But behind this lurks what seems to me a pretty abject position vis-a-vis authority. Governments aren't always right (!), and the best way to call them to account in a democratic society is through the free dissemination of information. (Blair recalls that the worst decision he ever made was the FOI Act - not invading Iraq or committing British troops to the hopeless killing fields of Afghanistan, but letting the public in on what his government was doing.) Be very careful when you retail the aspersions of those who want Assange rubbed out.

Manning gave the files to Wikileaks himself. He didn't do it in the hope that they WOULDN'T release the information. The fact that he faces the punitive action of his government merely reinforces the point he himself has made - that the information SHOULD be in the public domain. As for the fatuous and self-serving claim made by Hillary Clinton and others about 'endangering lives', the balance sheet is hardly in their favour is it, since so many of Wikileaks' leaks expose a ruthless murderousness directed at civilians that breaches as many war conventions as you can find. Incidentally, each time Wikileaks releases a bundle of secret documents, the cry from the great and good goes up that lives will be lost. Can you give me just ONE example of that actually happening? And as for the possibility of countries starting to lob missiles at each other as a result of the latest leaks - why put up something so highly, pie-in-the-sky unlikely and set that against the huge actual benefit of the release of the information? We already know what Iran's reaction is - they are saying that the leaks are a Western 'conspiracy'. They and Saudi Arabia will carry on undermining their respective regimes as before. Nothing, in that sense, has changed. What the revelations about SA's secret briefings do achieve is to inform about the true nature of the Saudi regime - which, among other things, has already been exposed by Wikileaks as the greatest single source of funds for al Qaeda. Now we also know, for example, that China is close to abandoning N Korea. Good! More locally, we know that Mervyn King has taken it upon himself to brief foreign governments against our own politicians. Should such duplicitous and damaging behaviour really be allowed to go on behind closed doors? These are all questions that need to be asked - but they can only be asked with releases like this.

Do as you wish. You seem to be making a habit of missing the point. I didn't say you couldn't make your own mind up about Assange as a person - I said it was completely irrelevant. The effect of Wikileaks' releases has been galvanising, and brought unaccountable actions of governments into the daylight. THAT is what is important, not some posters' snide views on his motivation.

Aside from being obnoxious, this is just plain weird. On the one hand, completely ignoring the context that governments around the world are freakin' DESPERATE to shut him up, you claim that if he's innocent. he has, in that deathly Orwellian phrase, 'nothing to fear'. On the other, you moan about his 'misdoings'. Guilty until proved innocent, right? And pure contradiction, of course - but worse than that, you equate his embarrassing almightily powerful states with their oppressive and venal behaviour, with the actions of an individual. Don't you think you're lacking just a little sense of proportion? Have you simply discounted the remote possibility that the allegations - not 'charges' - are trumped up? As I said earlier, there may be something to them, but it is somehow an 'interesting' time to question Assange's character in this way.

You don't have to make up your mind; it's irrelevant. He's a hero, whatever his motivation. Hillary Clinton's warning that the release of these cables would 'endanger lives' should be the soundtrack to the other wikileaks release of trigger-happy, murderously contemptuous US Apache pilots using armour-piercing rounds to kill innocent Iraqi citizens and journalists.

As I was saying... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/nov/30/interpol-wanted-notice-julian-assange

He already is. The Swedish authorities are pursuing him on a rape charge. Of course, it MIGHT be true...but all a sounds a bit Girl With a Dragon Tattoo.

Since you 'see it' so clearly, would you care to give us your detailed critique then, rather than resorting to the old 'conservative' (in the context of this thread) tactic of labelling anything you don't understand as 'crap'?

Of course you don't accept it. How could you? IQ has nothing to do with personality. It DOES have something to do with being able to follow the thread of an argument.

You COMPLETELY miss the point. Liberal tend to have higher IQs than reactionaries. End - as is said around these parts - of. Simple, and intelligible surely to anyone, unless....

We have a winner.

You don't say anything worth arguing with. It's all reheated Daily Mail guff.

This is just nonsense. The BBC does not make 'deliberate commercial decisions' - it doesn't make more or less money whatever Panorama's ratings. The timing of the programme was to coincide with the vote precisely because there is an issue of public interest at stake: the apparently limitless corruptibility of the world governing body for football. And 'there was nothing new' in it? You knew all that already, did you? I think not. The desire to punish the BBC by advocating something that will destroy it is a pathetic piece of small-minded revenge - all because of some weird perception that FIFA would vote against England 2018 simply because of Panorama. If true, that, in itself, would surely prove Panorama was right! And does a World Cup mean THAT much to you - that you want to wreak terrible revenge on a piece of investigative journalism by the BBC? The dimwitted, money-grubbing, genuflecting-to-corrupt-wealth Prince Andrew must be your hero.

I assure you it isn't.

Thank god none of you are allowed anywhere near journalism - but it's depressing to see such profound ignorance of a connection between free inquiry and the kind of society we (should) live in.

Just released. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp For me, the most significant 'news' is merely confirmation that Saudi Arabia remains the largest source of funds for al Qaeda, and that Qatar, another Western ally, is 'the worst in the region' for failing to act against known al Qaeda operatives in their borders out of fear of 'reprisals' from AQ and their sympathisers. The Arab peninsula remains the most significant source of global insecurity (which is to say, mass murder and maiming, particularly in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan) - something which all those who profit from their association with Dubai and other Wahhabi hangouts would do well to remember.

I'll just pop in to say this - One, it's a loan. With Interest. Two, you're in no position to lecture. Dubai's indebtedness is 140% of GDP, which is actually MUCH worse than Ireland and Greece - and you, unlike Ireland or Greece, actually defaulted a year ago. Three, just like Ireland, Dubai has lost its autonomy (to Abu Dhabi in your case) through it's hopeless, bubble-headed expansion built on nothing but sand, slave labour, complacency and the kind of herd mentality that gave ex-pats an even worse name than usual.

I know exactly where you're coming from Andy. I've decided to walk away (cue apathetic cheering), because the sheer pea-brained tedium of posters like dune, and the simple inevitability of racist garbage that results, as well as the pub-landlord 'wisdom' of DP, imparted while standing with both feet on the backs of South Asian contract workers, plus the utter boredom of the main board, all makes it simply not worth bothering with. I used to post as Roman, and had enormous fun, especially during the tommac days - but the sense of togetherness in adversity, which has always seemed to be essence of being a Saints fan, has evaporated on here. Far too many of the acerbic entertainers have gone - and the sheer comic genius of some of the threads of a couple of years ago is a distant memory. Never mind.

Get the tube into Earls Court, not West Brompton. Parking is zilch. Everywhere around is either double red lines or residents' only.

Sounds about right. The MPs' expenses scandal and our failure to prosecute companies that bribe foreign dictators are the main causes of this wonderful little result. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/britain-corrupt-mps-expenses-scandal

The threshold is £45,000 I think. But you don't have to stay above it - just achieve it in the year of registration. VAT registration has some real advantages, but don't underestimate the paperwork, nor the inflexible attitude of the taxman if you're a day or so late or your quarterly return goes AWOL in the post.

Or stick with anchors.

The problem is your 'views' are so bizarrely crude as to defy sensible discussion. It would be like trying to argue with a Taliban.

Every village has one.